same path but different out comes?

[danatoem]

So i used surface finish scallop version23, with identical shape bu t on different parts. On the one part i get a nice full cutter path. On the second part it will not cut the same. It gives me jagged edges  and starts down much lower? Does anyone know whats up with that?

[Radical1]

Probably should attach file(s), there are lots of different settings that can be done here. One is open the other closed...

[danatoem]

 I will investigate a little further, thanks

 

 

[danatoem]

Cavity Block.zipso i have a file here   with the scallop path starting  at the tangant point of the radius of the cutter. I would like the cutter to start at the top of the geometry , work its way over and down the shape and down. Is it possible?

[gcode]

Try this

 

also try the equal scallop toolpath with .001 stepover.. it yields a much cleaner toolplath

 

[crazy^millman]

One is closed end and the other is open ends so not the same shapes. Don't have time to review the files, but I would expect different results looking at those two different models. When is doubt import or copy the operation from one file into the other an re pick the planes and geometry.

[Jake L]

13 hours ago, gcode said:

also try the equal scallop toolpath with .001 stepover.. it yields a much cleaner toolplath

 

A bit off topic but, is this .001 offset benefit something that applies to all containment boundary toolpaths? Or does this only benefit in equal scallop toolpath? 

[gcode]

On 5/16/2023 at 5:17 AM, Jake L said:

A bit off topic but, is this .001 offset benefit something that applies to all containment boundary toolpaths? Or does this only benefit in equal scallop toolpath? 

It's not so much the type of toolpath, it's the quality of the surfaces and containment boundaries in your sample file.

You were telling the toolpath to run 0 offset to the containment boundarys and leave 0 stock on the surfaces.

There are tiny mismatches between the boundary and the surfaces and the tool was hopping around trying to accommodate both settings

Giving  Mastercam .001 slack on the containment boundaries gives it the room it needs to run a smooth toolpath on the surfaces.

[danatoem]

thanks for the help on this! I found that equal scallop worked really well.  The reason for the gap in the partline surface is because i lifted it  .005 to make sure it does not roll the sharp edge at the top edge. I ended up putting in a negitive value, -.005 in the offset distance and it brought the ball nose up higher to gradually work its way down. Exactly what i was looking for!  What i would really like is to be able to do apply stock to the partline surface, say .005 to avoid lifting the surface. 

[crazy^millman]

12 minutes ago, danatoem said:

thanks for the help on this! I found that equal scallop worked really well.  The reason for the gap in the partline surface is because i lifted it  .005 to make sure it does not roll the sharp edge at the top edge. I ended up putting in a negitive value, -.005 in the offset distance and it brought the ball nose up higher to gradually work its way down. Exactly what i was looking for!  What i would really like is to be able to do apply stock to the partline surface, say .005 to avoid lifting the surface. 

Model prep a copy of the solid and add .005 to that mating surface. Can add .255 and then use .-250 from the top of the stock. Many ways to do what your after that is a lot easier with Model prep.

[AMCNitro]

Not what I would use flowline on.  Like others said, scallop is better for that type of feature.  As far rolling the sharp edge, yeah, it's an issue.  The way I do it is I create what I call a fence.   Create geometry for the sharp edge, and extrude a surface, it will roll on the edge of the raised surface.  Also, make sure you use boundaries.