Yep, having the ability to add macros and plugins was requested several times and I think that the expertise here is top notch. After all, basic Easel (a beginner software) and Vcarve/Aspire both proprietary have this ability that provides built-in features that Carbide Create can only dream of. If Carbide wants to expand their offerings to grow their market by opening-up the prosumer market (without abandoning their current clientele) with more capable machines HDZ and possibly something akin to HDZero, it should have software to match the capabilities of the hardware. The recent CAD offering does not provide CAM so people have to go to F360 or import a DXF and create toolpaths the very limited CC, upgrading to a tool database would be a first step in the right direction.
I’ll be honest, as new user, I’d rather see blanks than wrong info…
Yay, the summoning worked !
More likely a coincidence, but in any case, THANK YOU @robgrz
And to all voters: you know what you have to do now (install 433 beta, play with the new F&S, and provide feedback to further improve the default F&S values in CC).
Was it just a coincidence???
And an FYI- we’ll likely be moving away from a math-based speed and feed calculation that we have now to a more recipe-based approach in the coming months.
the one thing I would really love is if there is a way, as part of the definition of a specific endmill, is to specify upper (and lower) bounds on things like inch-per-minute and depth-of-cut that clips whatever algorithm the tool uses.
This is great news. I agree @The_real_janderson’s hunch, and if you do embed all of @wmoy’s Material Monday F&S data in CC, and you’ll be pretty much done I think. Well, then you will need to implement adaptive clearing toolpaths in CC, but that’s a small detail, right 
Some have suggested that GWizard should be used for feeds and feeds, at least for wood. That seems reasonable since BW seems to be recognized as a “subject area expert” and reportedly has had a Shapeoko for some time now. Is that being considered?
Nope, GWizard is not an option we’re considering. Priority one for us is simplifying the workflow for the “average user”, which means we’ll be baking in tested speed and feed combinations for each cutter/machine/material combination.
Then, for the people who want to tweak data and share libraries, we’ll likely be saving user libraries in CSV format that can be easily edited and traded without having to be explicitly imported/exported.
Do you intend to use GWizard as a “starting point”? If not, how do you intend to proceed?
Winston, a pile of material, and a pile of cutters. Probably coffee too. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen him drink coffee but he’s going to need to start.
I have been working on an "easy " calculator for CC & Shapeoko that works kind of like this. I love the idea of user libraries too. I would love to be able to set my own defaults for specific cutters when used on specific materials.
Sent you a PM about the Calculator.
That sounds like a really worthwhile endeavor. Any chance he’d be willing to monitor and record cutting powers and document the cutting parameters sufficiently to enable others to replicate his findings and generate material K-factors/Unit Horsepowers? Recording video and audio would probably help with that.
No. The resulting chart of safe starting speeds and feeds by definition will not push the machine to its limits. If you believe there’s value in charting this out, I encourage you to get your own hands dirty.
The vast majority of people as far as I can tell just cut “by ear”. That is to say they either find settings that cut smoothly and pleasantly, or they crank things up to just below the threshold that they can no longer stand the screeching of a cutter going through wood. Equations and formulas will not help them, just empirical observation and experience.
PS, I do occasionally drink coffee, @robgrz.
this sounds like a useful thing… the one feature I’d request is that when adding your own cutter, you can say “start like THAT one”
(I like 2mm downcut cutters, they’re awesome, but I’d just pick values from the 0.063" cutter as starting point)
I wasn’t suggesting “push[ing] the machine to its limits”. That’s not necessary to add value and utility to your efforts by quantifying and documenting them.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.