Hi All
So I have a question on V-carving a string of letters that overlap.
1st when I add text. I understand that it is a text string and the letters are all combined into one drawing. #1 in the image below.
So I transfer them from Text to Curves 2,3,4. Now I have separate drawings of letters.
If I “group vector” them, it combines the separate curves into one drawing. I get that. It is one combined drawing. works perfect.
If I select each letter by itself, and give each a separate tool path, the tool paths are obviously separate for each letter; which is the desired outcome I want #2
However if I select “separate” drawings via Layers #3 or by shift selecting multiple drawings #4 and then try to tell it to use the same tool to cut these “separate” drawings; you can see it combines the separate drawing into one drawing and cuts it as a single drawing, The tool does not follow the correct path. Look where the H overlaps the T and the E overlaps the H. #2 is the correct path it should follow. they are separate paths that cross. #1 I understand as it is a single drawing, I also understand if I use the “Group Vectors” to combine it into one drawing.
What I don’t understand is when you select “multiple” drawings, why would the V-Carve tool path combine these separate drawings and cut them as one by combining the tool paths. ???
This messes up the drawing. It ignores the overlapped area and carves too deep, from outside edge to outside edge
Hmmm Should it do this ???
Shouldn’t the design work be done in the design tab. Why would, in the tool path, selecting multiple drawing objects to be cut with the same tool, change the drawing. ???
For now I have to use a whole bunch of separate tool paths, one for each letter; which is a pain on larger projects. This is just a small example.
I guess the concept described here would be “Implicit Boolean Union” — the algorithm assumes that overlapping regions are supposed to be joined.
Rather than individual toolpaths for each letter you can get the same effect by alternate selections comprising two or more toolpath selections which have no overlaps.
When 2 shapes intersect like this, the tool tries to maintain tangency to the curves as it cuts.
The tool will fit into the intersection at a larger diameter, so it cuts deeper to insure that it’s following the curves on the surface of the part.
Neither is “incorrect”. They both follow the curves.
Thanks Will
I like it. Wow do I feel silly, yes, just pick every second character.
Just not sure why we are changing the design in the toolpath tab, Hmmm
We created separate design objects in the design tab and I see no reason why we cant use a single tool for multiple objects without changing the design of the creator Just Saying
Because there are two different possible representations — unioned, or separate — the current system allows the convenience of cutting unioned (w/o the need to join them) and the possibility of cutting as separate entities (which looks better in some instances)
thanks @Tod1d
However, by design they are separate overlapping objects, they are not the same object. I do understand the depth if it was a single object.
In the design tab we can combine them if we want, or we can have separate objects. It is up to the designer
The tool path should not override and combine separate design objects IMHO.
Yep I believe that would work
Thanks
However although there is work arounds, I am pointing out, IMHO, Grouping vectors to create a new design should be done in the Design tab to create a new design object, which it is and it works great. Selecting multiple design “objects” in the Toolpath tab should just “group” them to be cut with the same tool settings. They should remain as separate design objects. Or you go back to the design tab and adjust the design there.
I appreciate the work around suggestions though. That helps
I hope the powers that be see this and recognize that there might be a need for a change as it creates an inconstant workflow. IMHO We design in the “design tab” and we just assign tool paths to design objects in the “toolpath tab”. Changing design objects (unions) in the toolpath breaks this workflow. I believe it is C3D mission to create simple and constant workflow in their products.
This is the main reason that I quit using C3D software; too much hand-holding for experienced users. Now you’re showing that it is being done behind the curtain, too.
Just Saying 