Unable to copy control C

Using cc620 unable to use control c to copy item highlighted? anyone else having issues. I am able to use control C on version version cc530. Thanks

I am Using windows 10

This has changed, ctrl-c now copies the selection into an internal clipboard, then ctrl-v pastes it at the original location, or at the cursor.

2 Likes

Thank you! works perfect. learning every day Thanks again

Note… the new copy/paste also pastes the tool path associated with the object if there had been one set.

3 Likes

There’s also a Duplicate command (mapped to ctrl d) which is the old functionality plus new tricks.

I hate to write this because I don’t like nitpicking comments myself, but I’d like to make sure we document the behavior correctly for people:

Copying and pasting a vector will add the new vector to the toolpaths that the original vector was linked to. It will not create a new toolpath.

(Sorry again)

3 Likes

Rob, No apology necessary! I would hate to give misleading info to anyone. So for me, if any comments I make are incorrect or misleading then please do correct me. It just makes us all better CNCers.

1 Like

@robgrz Are you still considering changing that behavior and creating new Toolpath Groups with the pasted toolpaths? I thought you were still considering that.

I’m still not sure about that one. To be honest, I don’t fully understand the generic use case for it, or the relative importance of duplicating a toolpath with a vector compared to other things we can implement in that time.

Either way, it’s more of a possibility now that the duplicate command is in there so duplicating a toolpath wouldn’t be the default option.

2 Likes

I’ll give you my take on the use case, but prioritization is clearly your call, alone.

If I’m adding a reusable component to my design, I will want to add it, and likely modify it to match the parameters of the new project (size, depths, tools, etc.). If the toolpaths get “blended” in with the rest of my toolpaths (particularly if more than one toolpath is copied) and I can no longer differentiate those that were modified because of the paste action from those that existed before, it becomes very difficult to manipulate the toolpaths just for those objects I pasted without impacting the paths that existed before. I will also need to make sure I hit ALL of the toolpaths to make the adjustements. Whereas, if new toolpaths were created (and named so that they are obviously resultant from the paste), I know what I need to modify to make the changes to those pasted objects…without impacting any other objects.

  • Gary

I think I follow but can you share what a reusable component would be for you?

There are some edge cases where copying a toolpath can lead to confusion or other problems so I want to make sure I’m very clear on the applications and expectations.

2 Likes

Just off the top of my head (and it may not be the best example): But maybe I want to add my logo to a piece. Each time I add it, I’d want to resize it (easy) and maybe change the depth of the toolpath. I also might change the bits used, depending on the resizing. That may or may not create new paths, I suppose, depending on how you’re determining if the paths already exist. But if my logo had a bounding rectangle, for example, I could see how that toolpath might get combined.

Another example would be a recurring element that I need to create a connector between two pieces. Again, I’d need to change depths based on the thickness of the stock, might need to change sizes, and therefore, tooling.

Exactly…which is why I feel keeping the resulting toolpaths in their own toolpath group (perhaps named Paste 1; Paste 2; Paste n; or something better that you guys think up) makes the most sense. As a user, regardless of the use case, I will know exactly what was created to support the paste and can choose to do whatever I want with those items.

Again…I’m not sure if this ranks on the priority list or not. I have only played with the functions so far - and they’re such a leap in usability better already, we’re really discussing the fine hairs. I just think it would be simpler and cleaner to be able to isolate the results of a paste.

Got it now. My gut instinct is that the better use of time would be to make it possible to import another C2D file, design, toolpaths, and all. (Which is on the to-do list) That would let you save reusable components as their own file to load into other designs with minimal effort and almost zero potential for unintended consequences.

Following your implementation ideas, the toolpaths would have to be renamed and possibly grouped to make the intent clear.

Thoughts?

3 Likes

Agreed on priority and love the C2D import feature.

Yes…exactly. Prefer them grouped, then I can treat them as an object, enable/disable, move it around, etc.

It all sounds good to me. I look forward to it and would gladly Alpha it.

Hello all,
Bill Hughes from Oz (Kansas) here.
Been lurking around since I acquired a used Shapeoko 3XXL this summer.
After thorough (OCD-inspired) information overload, I finally have time to dive down the CNC-ing rabbit hole.

But first things first…

When I “Command + C” (MBPro 2020 Catalina 10.15.7), the object is immediately pasted up and to the right.

Command + D does nothing.

Figure this strange behavior is a decent reason to introduce myself to the C3D community.

Cheerio!

Duh, glazed over the “cc620

1 Like

Just another “Duh” moment we all eventually contribute to this activity and forum… you fit in just fine.

Welcome Bill.