Evenly spaced cut depth in "multiple depths"

[Anonymous]

This is one that has been bugging me for a while - we all know that math is inconvenient, so could a field be added to to the "multiple depths" page where I could simply say how many step downs I want, and the software figures out what that step down value needs to be? Often times, even if I do the math, I still end up with either 1 cut that is larger or 1 extra small cut based on starting/ending height, stock allowances, etc. Seems like it would save some headache to be able to say "3 even step downs - GO!"

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

You know there is a check box for even stepdown's right?

It doesn't allow you to input the amount of stepdown's but you give in the maximum step-down and it will calculate the largest possible even step-downs with that.

[George-Roberts]

I imagine this may be good in one situation but would be a bit inconvenient if you had multiple areas selected at different depths. Imagine selecting a pocket which is 10mm deep and one which is 3mm deep then saying you want 5 stepdowns.... The 3mm deep pocket would be a huge waste of time. Like Laurens said, the 'even stepdowns' option would be your best bet

[Anonymous]

But I may not know what my step depth needs to be. For example, If I try to do it in one depth, but I exceed my LOC, I will get an error. This option would be nice because I could just change my number of step downs to 2, or whatever number it needs to be. Actually, it would be really nice if the error would give the option to automatically apply multiple depths and suggest a value. Error message would read something like "You have requested to exceed the LOC for this tool. You would need X step downs of .XXX". Do you wish to apply this change?" 

[George-Roberts]

Can you not reference the LOC? If you set 'multiple depths' and 'even stepdowns' as default, then set tool.fluteLength as your max stepdown, this would do the same thing I believe

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@George-Roberts exactly!

[Anonymous]

I would use only this method if it's implemented.  Simple quality of life thing for machinist folks. 

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@Anonymous @Anonymous

Can you explain why the current system isn't working for you?

I mean as a machinist I can't instantly say it's 2 or 3 passes for a given tool. But I give in the flute length for the tool when I make it in the library so the system can decide what the number of step-downs is.

[Anonymous]

It's not that it isn't working - It's more about having another tool in the tool box / another arrow in the quiver. LOC was just one example. The suggestion above is great, but if I recall, even stepdowns isn't available on all toolpath styles and it's only applicable if I'm trying to take full depth cuts.

Another example to better explain - I have a part that has a long, narrow slot in copper. I have found that the most efficient way to machine this is with a shallow step down at a high feed rate and a tool that is just slightly smaller than the slot. Since the copper is so gummy, it doesn't like much flute contact, so the shallow depth seems to be most successful. The side wall is roughly .750" tall and my step down is maybe about .05", so I'm taking somewhere around 15 passes (I say somewhere because this caluclation actually takes into account the feature size plus several stock allowances and it isn't nearly as straightforward as one would think). Now I run this program and all is well, so I want to go a little faster. I'm happy with the chip load, so I would like to take a deeper cut. Now I have to figure out what my actual cut depth is currently (since several factors are taken into account, this can be tricky to get exact....) and then figure out what it needs to be - sounds easy enough, but it takes time and often some fudging of numbers to get to work exactly. I frequently run into situations where I increase my DOC and nothing really changes. Whereas, If I had a box displaying that my number of stepdowns is 15, I type in 14 and I'm done. I run into this situation very frequently, and I often find myself needing to tweak DOC to get it to do exactly what I want to do. I see this streamlining a lot of that guess work.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@Anonymous

Yeah so the idea is you use the DOC first and then if you tweak that you just want to say one pass less?

But this gets tricky when you have more than one contour selected that is not the same depth. Which is possible is all the 2D Operations as far as I know.

[Anonymous]

@Laurens-3DTechDraw That's correct.

And yes, I totally agree. Typically what I do in that scenario is to split out a specific contour that needs the unique attention. That way I can optimize for that particular feature independently of others that may be easier.

[al.whatmough]

Batch processing ideas that are 10+ months old with less than 5 votes. This is in no way to suggest the idea isn't a good one. However, the lack of votes tends to mean that the community feels other ideas should be given a higher priority. Feel free to tag me if you feel an idea wasn't given enough of a chance. We are more than happy to have a conversation on any of these ideas.