I have two different tool paths (gcode files) generated from that v-carve. The first file hogs out the general shape; the second one cleans up everything and adds some “light” texture. The problem I’m running into is that the second pass goes twice as deep as expected. I double checked the g-code generated, and it’s correct (via two different simulators).
I guarantee its operator error, I’m just not sure where – that’s why I’m asking…
Sequence
Secure the piece; zero all at the proper datum
Pass 1 finished; stopped the router and quick positioned the machine up front
Changed the bit
Re-zeroed only the z access to the same place I did in step 1
Hit run … and bogus-ness happened ><
I can make some assumptions; please let me know if they aren’t true.
Same instance of carbide motion; loading a new g-code; cuts will not be relative to previous cuts. So for instance if in an area I cut ¼ “ deep, and I ask for 3/8” deep; it won’t go down ¼+3/8. I assume it would only go down another 1/8 from the original.
Sorry for the ID-10-T question; still getting my bearings corrected.
when zeroing only the z axis, are you setting the probe body entirely on the surface? for z ony you cant let it overhang the corner like when zeroing all three
I don’t have a probe, they were out of stock when I ordered the machine (maybe still are?), so I use the high tech approach w/ a paper between the stock and the router bit.
When I do re-zero (only) the z-axis, I put it at the corner where I initially zero’d out everything and move the bit closer to the stock until it’s almost touch (via the paper test).
I ended figuring out what the problem was. It was me . I must not have re-zero’d the Z axis before I updated the bit like I thought I did…
I took the same g-code and an mdf board and attempted to repeat my steps, and it didn’t. I double checked to ensure my z was re-zero’d this time and all worked as planned.
As a side note, the second bit is slightly larger by 0.5" than the first.