Random Follow-on:
Reflecting further on this while i was generating those fusion 360 demo images, it might be a simple as the relationship is (maybe not but just my stream of conscieousness):
- If you enable climb cutting, you can position entry/exit in at peak, half-way point of a tip
- If you enable conventional cutting, you must never position entry/exit at peak, half-way point of a tip.
The current default setting would be considered ‘conventional cut positioned at tip points’ (the unholy abomination combination) :P.
However, if the above relation were considered true, my ‘vibes’ % success’ guess, assuming the current default approach is 0% for baseline, would be:
- ‘climb cut positioned AT tip points’ might be a 60%-80% fix (but maybe in practice its still 0% as I can see how the inward cutting force would still chip out but instead the chip will fly out the anticlockwise direction instead of clockwise), where as the…
- ‘conventional cutting positioned AWAY from tip points’ (my proposition) would be like a 95% fix because it’s addressing all of the core issues at play in the failure mechanism
With the current default, you’re almost solely relying on the wood grain consistency and strength to keep it from chipping. The proposed approach reduces the reliance on wood grain consistency and focuses on an order of operations that minimises this factors relevance. By fixing this, the only relevant factors then are going to be that standard feed/speed/DoC.