Please post the c2d file, generated G-Code, and step-by-step note son how you are securing your stock and setting zero relative to it and we’ll do our best to work through this with you.
Thanks for the response. Please refer to the last post I did as it mirrors the conversation we are about to have. Some instances are different but over all its the same instance. Thats why the frustration.
By the way, my stock is perfectly flat and level. I’ve zeroed from three points on the stock and changed the depth as much as 3/4" . until I fooled it by going past the stock it staid the same.
Is there anyone that could help figure this all out?
One thing in your file which you should look into — outline cutout isn’t the last operation — it’s also a slot just as narrow as the endmill — you should add geometry so as to cut as a pocket:
Most likely a mechanical issue — list of things to check at: https://wiki.shapeoko.com/index.php/FAQ#Mechanical
I checked your other thread. You described this:
- Used probe with end mill to zero.
- Changed bit to 90V
- Set zero one more time with probe.
- Loaded new file, started job
I’m wondering why you used the BitZero with an endmill and zeroed, and then changed to a v-bit and zeroed again. Do you do this all the time?
The zeroing with the end mill will do nothing for you if you then change the bit to a vbit. So that first step is of no use.
Can you restate what your zeroing method is when using the BitZero?
From the other thread, you have a BitZero 2. Is it possible your v-bit is so wide it is not touching the bottom first, but instead the outside of the ring?
Do you have a BitSetter?
1 Like
So to answer your questions, I zeroed with the end mill because that was the first bit I started with for cutting a pocket. I changed to my next bit which was a v bit, so the next thing was to zero my Z. I tried both methods on all instances when zeroing. When one wouldn’t work I’d try the traditional way. I agree, why would I zero with one bit then zero again with the another?
I zero with the BitZero 2 exactly as outlined in the directions.
My V-Bit is a 90 and it fits fine within the Bitzero 2
No I do not have a BitSetter because it’s never in stock.
Thing is everything I do is as outlined in the many available tutorials and works like a champ for about three out of five projects. Many of the things I do are exact replicas with the exception of changing some of the text.
Yes I did notice that as well but didn’t realize it when sending you the file. So the cut out is corrected.
That’s great information by adding geometry and I will try it.
But, I’ve never had any other cutting issues other than the depth. X and Y zero perfectly in all instances. What goes wrong is the Z zeroing. It works great on one project and then I’ll start another project which is the same exact project with one exception, the name on the project is changed. NO other modifications are made to any toolpaths but when setting Z zero on the second project it does NOT reflect the same Depth as the previous project.
Also, I forgot to mention, that after every project I completely clean the machine. About every five projects I check belt tensions and all screws. I have a waste board that is screwed down to the machine and cannot be any more level, there is no cupping or sags in the material. I can’t stress enough how anal I am with making sure everything is level! When putting the level on the material, if I can slide a piece of paper under any part of the level, I will get another piece of material and or level it with a planer.
Hi Toby.
It certainly seems like you are quite diligent!
I only have the old BitZero so to be honest I’m unsure how the new one works in practice.
The only thing that comes to mind that might be a simple mistake with repetitive tasks is variance in accidentally overhanging the BitZero on the corner of the stock when only doing a Z only probe (there are two different positions for Z and X,Y,Z probing as you probably know)
Other than that, the only thing left I can think of would be the Z-Axis moving too high and programmatically counting moves that do not result in a physical movement.
To be quite honest I stopped using the BitZero 2 all together, I have just not had enough consistency with it to be useful. I’ve just been sticking with the old sheet of paper under the bit trick that leaves a lot less likelihood of “mishaps”.
The thing that gets me the most is that, if I were changing tool paths and all that stuff I could understand a programmatic error. But I’m using the same exact parameters as the previous project! The only procedural change is switching out material (same thickness) and setting Z! It makes absolutely no sense to me! I use the same stock measurements and I have it so I don’t even have to re-zero the X and Y axis because I made a jig to put it in the same place as the previous. Never had an issue. I’m tired of the glitch and have ruined plenty of materials trying to get it to correct.
For instance if the max depth is set to lets say 0.0100 or 0.0500 and I change the max depth on the next pass as 1.000 it changes nothing!! It remains the same depth no matter what!
Can you explain what you are doing here a little more?
Are you referring to the max depth for a toolpath in Carbide Create, and if so, what type of toolpath?
By “next pass” do you mean “next project” ?
So on any given tool path the depth of something like the border around a logo isn’t deep enough, I change the parameters of the depth. Sometimes it won’t even change the retract height. What I mean by next pass is essentially starting the tool path over again with different depth parameters. This applies mostly to a V bit path that I use pretty consistently.
Like I said earlier, it is so random that I can do the same project back to back with only a text change and absolutely no changes to the original tool path, suddenly the new project isn’t even close to matching the depth and or width of first project logos or letters. Make sense? I’ve even gone so far as to create a completely new tool path and it still did not change.
I am by no means an expert and or a tech computer guy but I pointed out once before and it may just be a coincidence but these issues did not exist prior to the download of CC Pro.
Would this be an “Advanced VCarve” ?
The regular VCarve doesn’t let you specify a maximum depth.
From what I’ve read here (I don’t use CC anymore), with the Advanced VCarve, the “Max Depth” is not the “Cut Depth”. It’s a “Maximum”.
@Fenrus mentioned this:
with “Advanced VCarve” there is a way to set the maximum depth.
But the actual depth can be less than the max… if you try to carve between two lines and the distance and angle of your bit are such that the bit cannot go to full depth without going outside the lines… you’ll get a shallower cut
So I think that is a limit rather than a cut depth.
If you are using a profile path with a VBit then you can set the “Max Depth” and it will be the cut depth.
The maximum depth in this file looks to be 0.03". That’s less than 1mm.
1 Like
Yes that would be the Advanced and that’s the one I use most often.
O.K. that explains a lot more and makes sense…
But, that still does not explain the reason for the “shallower” cuts on the second project. It is the same exact format as the first, nothing in the actual design changes. Also, the inability to change the retract height in the same scenario is not explained.
Yes it probably is, by the time I posted the file I had changed the parameters so many times to try get a different result, that I just didn’t reset it back to the original.
Gotcha… so the Advanced VCarve is moderately new and probably is fitting into the feeling of change when you switched to CC Pro.
The job of the VCarve is to carve a groove such that the width of the line is the same width as the line in the project.
So it will only go as deep as required based on the angle of the vbit. A very wide angle vbit will cut a shallow groove since it achieves the width easily. A smaller angle will have to go deeper in order to cut the correct width.
But, that still does not explain the reason for the “shallower” cuts on the second project. It is the same exact format as the first, nothing in the actual design changes. Also, the inability to change the retract height in the same scenario is not explained.
The thread is long so I’m not following exactly what the second project is here. It sounds like you are running the same .nc file generated once with no changes in CC on two separate bits of stock and having shallower cuts in the second?
The retract height is set in the project set up. Do you have an .nc file with retract height “a” and another exactly the same design with retract height “b” so we can see what’s being generated?
Lately I’ve been using only two types of bits, Vee 6 and or various end mills, 1/8, 1/4
The two projects are the exact same size, thickness, cuts, emblems, stars. The only thing that changes is the name of the person it’s going to. NOTHING ELSE CHANGES
Project A, cuts exactly the way I want it to with the parameters set to exactly what I want to achieve the look I want.
Project B, in theory should cut exactly the way Project A is set up because only the font has changed. IT DOES NOT
For instance,
Project A emblem letters cut to a depth with Vee 90 at 0.0375" (Deutsch)
Project B emblem letters cut to a depth with Vee 90 at 0.0560" (Harris)
These measurements are taken with digital calipers and are just one example. I understand that its not much of a variation but should there be any variation?Deutsch.c2d (1007.7 KB) Harris.c2d (995.2 KB)
Are the letters the same size?