Does Parallel toolpath have bugs?

[Sadovshikov_Vitalii]

I am striving to cut out the slope utilising 3D Parallel strategy and get bizarre tool path generation.

Firstly I select the desired slope by selecting Chain of the edge of the slope. For "Tool Containment" I have chosen "Tool centre on boundary" option and enable "Contact Point Boundary".

As a result I've got the following generated tool path. The first oddity is why doesn't the tool cut the whole slope lefting material on the left and right sides of the slope:

The second weirdness is why doesn't the tool path go to the top of the slope leaving material on the top of the slope whereas cutting out all material in the bottom of the slope? Note that "Tool center on boundary" and "Contact Point Boundary" are enabled.

and if I switch to "Tool Outside boundary", it just getting worse:

And the last thing that I can't work out is how to coerce the tool path to go along slope (i.e. from top to bottom or vice verca) and not from side to side of the slope.  Bacause, apparently, the tool path generated along X-axis of WCS of the setup:

 In closing I want to figure out how to cut out whole material from the slope (with out leftover on the sides) and how direct tool path along the slope (not accros)?

[seth.madore]

What you are seeing is not bugs, but limitations of the toolpath. It is a surface tool, not a wall tool, so it won't get everything that you're expecting it to.

To get the correct slope that you're after, select "Pass Direction" on the Passes tab. This will orient the toolpath in-line with the feature you select.

If you can, could you share your part here?
File >Export > Save to local folder, return to thread and attach the .f3d file in your reply

[Sadovshikov_Vitalii]

Thank you for your response. Here is the attached file. The problem with selecting the Pass Direction option is that I have multiple slopes with variable directions. Should I in this case generate separate tool path for each of them?

[seth.madore]

Since the cutouts are all the same and equally spaced, just program one of them and put it into a Pattern > Rotation:

 

I've attached your file with a couple toolpath examples for your review

[Sadovshikov_Vitalii]

Thank you! Greate solution! But could you elusidate some points? As there is some misunderstanding:

1. Evidently, the problem with this leftover on the sides of the slope was that I should set a too skinny stepover. Could you explain how the Parallel tool path works, specifically in terms of the optimal stepover width necessary to prevent residue on the sides of a slope, i.e. is there some dependencies? There four cases with variable Stepover value:

Evidently the toolpaths with Stepovers = 0.02’ and 0.015’ leave plenty of material at the last pass, whereas Stepover = 0.01’ and 0.005’ cut out more precisely (but nevertheless seems there still some leftover after the last pass).

2. Utilising patterns for all slopes is a clever way to treat them all at once. Let’s imagine that all these slopes are not selfsame, by way of illustration if they have various slope angles or (and) thickness/width, do we have to individually apply a “Parallel” tool path for all of them?

[oleg.tikhomirov · Accepted solution]

Hi @Sadovshikov_Vitalii 

The problem with left stock on walls is caused by natural limitation of Parallel toolpath. It generates cutting paths and just trims them against provided boundaries at the end. Basically, it means that you can’t make cutting paths perfectly match your slot.

@seth.madore suggested very good options but I think the best is Morph strategy. The difference with Parallel that it generates morphing passes between specified input curve (which are walls of the slot in you case). It works with no left stock on walls for any stepover. Please try the following settings. "Contour offset" should be just slightly less than you tool cutter radius.

[Sadovshikov_Vitalii]

Superior solution for my purpose! Thank you!