Pocket Clearing, inside-out vs outside in cutting direction

[DarthBane55]

When using pocket clearing, I want to be able to choose between "inside-out" or "outside-in" cutting direction.

At the moment, if you have a floor which has no walls at all, it will machine from outside to inside.  If you have at least 1 wall, it will machine from inside to outside.  You cannot change this, no matter how hard you try, or which cycle you use.  I would agree that in most cases, this makes sense and is desired.  However, there are cases which this is not wanted, and at the moment you cannot change it.  I contacted tech support, phone, emails, forum, etc.  You can come close to what you need, but it won't be exactly what I describe...  unless you draw additional geometry.  I can make an alternate model and get what I want, but it is time consuming (we make lots of these parts, so I'd have to constantly make a few models for each part), when a simple option asking the cutting direction would solve the issue completely.

On the picture below, the pattern is exactly what I am after.  If course it is not good as it machines the wall right off.  But the pattern is correct.  I did this by saying that the part is only the step face where i machine, so the wall is not considered, therefore it machines inwards.  If I use the full part as the model to consider for toolpath, it starts from the middle of the floor and goes outwards, because there is a wall.  The option to choose the direction would solve this.

[Greg_Haisley]

This is a perfect candidate for 2D adaptive. Have you tried it?

[DarthBane55]

Yes, I tried 2d adaptive.  In fact, I have tried every pattern there is.  The adaptive is not the pattern I am looking for here...  I forgot to mention, this is a finishing pass, not roughing.

[kb9ydn]

I think part of the reason for wanting this specific tool path pattern is for cosmetic reasons.  The resulting tool marks have a neater appearance than paths created by adaptive (I realize this is totally subjective and personally I think the adaptive paths look cool too, but I can understand that people might want the more traditional looking tool marks).

C|

[DarthBane55]

You are correct, it has to do with cosmetics, but also this path is faster than adaptive clearing for a finish pass, because it never tracks back and restart at the beginning again, it just carries on, so less distance to do for the tool.  Since this is for a finish pass, tool life is not an issue (this is aluminum).  So the pocket in is faster, and mostly looks better, although as you said, this is very subjective.  We have additional parameters to consider for this setup also...  There are things around the part that I cannot show, but that would make adaptive maybe not ideal, for this case. 

[kb9ydn]

Actually if I had my druthers the Horizontal strategy would be the tool path of choice for this particular case.  It will almost do it now but for whatever reason it does silly things like start from the outside, straight full engagement path to the middle, then spiral outward with extra unnecessary passes around the perimeter.  Horizontal would be so much cooler if it just had a few more options.

But still, an outside-in option would also be nice for 2D pocket.

C|

[DarthBane55]

Yes, I tried that cycle as well, and I think I would extend my request to Horizontal as well.  As you said, you can make it start from the outside, but it is just an "illusion" as it goes to the middle and mills outwards anyways...  a little strange...  🙂

[Steinwerks]

Another vote for Outside->In on BOTH pocket and Horizontal. Why Horizontal doesn't already have this I have absolutely no idea. Seems like a no-brainer compared to slotting to the middle to work its way out.

[DarthBane55]

Agreed 

[Greg_Haisley]

You guys know with 3D horizontal you can turn off the plunge from outside check box right? This lets the tool helical entry in the middle of the pocket and cuts to the outside without running into walls and such. The only hangup I have with horizontal is the extra pass on the outside. I don't know why this happens, so we can use the trim passes option to remove the extra pass.

[DarthBane55]

We realize that, but the goal of this path is to start from outside and machine inwards (my goal, with this post).

[Steinwerks]

@Greg_Haisley

Yes, and then it gouges in the middle in a helix or ramp. It's visible is the point, and there's no reason for it to do this. Plus if you have different ramp-in feed and speed settings for that tool it'll change those too, potentially swirling chips in the middle of your finished area while the spindle ramps up to normal speed (of course this is dependent on not correcting those in the Tool tab).

[Rob_Lockwood]

There's already a better solution implemented within 2D contour, it's just not well known, and could use some help staying down..But I do agree about horizontal, it could use some better logic to handle different pocket types better.

[DarthBane55]

Hi Rob, I did not realize we could do this...  I don't like the tool going up and down, but I fixed that, see pic below.  I think I could use this until my request is implemented.

I do not retract my suggestion, I still want it badly, but this could work as temporary fix (at least in this situation here).  Thanks a lot for the suggestion!!

[Rob_Lockwood]

it should work with both-ways, and slave the directions off of making sure the actual finish contour direction is maintained. It's pretty flexible and works in most situations. The same applies under certain circumstances with 2D Pocket in combo with stock contours, but it's less flexible.

[DarthBane55]

I noticed that the climb/conventional direction has no effect at all.  On the picture I posted, I selected climb, and I think the pass along the wall should then be climb milling (it is not).  I changed it to conventional in case...  but it did not change the direction.  In order to change the direction I had to adjust the stepover until 1 extra pass, or 1 less pass, had to be taken, and that reversed the direction.  I think this must be a bug, otherwise they should not ask if we want to climb or conventional mill...  but it is for a different topic.  I want to stay focused on my Ideas request in this thread.

[ArjanDijk]

I had this option in a previous CAM system and noticed that it confused users. If its an open pocket I understand what you want, but then I prefer to do it in Horizontal. With an inner pocket it is just asking for toolbreakage because the chips cant get away (yes Ive seen it). 

[DarthBane55]

Again, I am talking about a finish pass here, not roughing.  If someone gets confused by having to decide whether he wants to cut inside-out or outside-in, maybe he made the wrong career choice...

[al.whatmough]

I have archived this as leveraging 2D contour is the best approach to solve this need at present.

I do understand there is a cosmetic element to this request.  However, other ideas need to be prioritized over this.

[DarthBane55]

[whizbanger]

Would really like to see 'Outside-In' ability added to 3D Pockets.