2DAdaptive leaves material behind when used for facing

2DAdaptive leaves material behind when used for facing

kb9ydn
Advisor Advisor
639 Views
3 Replies
Message 1 of 4

2DAdaptive leaves material behind when used for facing

kb9ydn
Advisor
Advisor

As the title says, when used as a facing tool path 2DAdaptive leaves material behind.  Test file is attached.

 

2DAdaptiveProblem.png

 

 

C|

 

0 Likes
Accepted solutions (1)
640 Views
3 Replies
Replies (3)
Message 2 of 4

daniel_lyall
Mentor
Mentor

Why not use faces, And yer it does leave a bit behind


Win10 pro | 16 GB ram | 4 GB graphics Quadro K2200 | Intel(R) 8Xeon(R) CPU E5-1620 v3 @ 3.50GHz 3.50 GHz

Daniel Lyall
The Big Boss
Mach3 User
My Websight, Daniels Wheelchair Customisations.
Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn

0 Likes
Message 3 of 4

porsbym
Alumni
Alumni
Accepted solution

This is a simulation inaccuracy. The "Standard" simulation mode actually uses a triangulated tool (meaning it's not quite round), and that's what you are seeing here.

 

Try the Fast mode instead - it uses a more accurate model of the tool, and you can zoom in to get any precision in the details you would like.

 

In any case, adding a small lead out should help to ensure that there is nothing left (due to deflection) when you run it on the machine.

 

/Mark

Message 4 of 4

kb9ydn
Advisor
Advisor

@porsbym wrote:

This is a simulation inaccuracy. The "Standard" simulation mode actually uses a triangulated tool (meaning it's not quite round), and that's what you are seeing here.

 

Try the Fast mode instead - it uses a more accurate model of the tool, and you can zoom in to get any precision in the details you would like.

 

In any case, adding a small lead out should help to ensure that there is nothing left (due to deflection) when you run it on the machine.

 

/Mark


 

 

Good spot on the lead-out.  For whatever reason the defaults were set to zero (I don't remember doing this Smiley Frustrated ) so I reset them to the built in defaults, and that did it.

 

It seems odd that the "fast" mode would be more accurate than the "standard" mode.  You would think it to be the other way around.  But whatever.

 

Thanks

C|

0 Likes