School me on Raster tool paths

[medaq]

I can not figure a way for the path to not dive downwards after it passes a surface.  I made check surfaces to the ends of this surface. But not it does not want to do a good transition to  the next path. Wants to rapid up and move to the next point. I have the keep tool down within value way higher then the step over. I would of thought the path would come off tangent to the surface. 

Also all the boundaries  mean nothing to this tool path? All the transitions just go passed it. 

 

 

[Guest]

File?

[medaq]

47 minutes ago, JParis said:

File?

I can not share the file I am working on. But I drew a quick square surface and attached it with 2 tool paths. Containment stops the drop down off the surface, but still goes passed the containment. 

test raster.mcam

[Guest]

Some different things happening.....with the Raster tool path, without walls, it will transition off of the surface.....

Look to these settings to help

 

and with walls

 

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/vl3guclw0642cao/JP_test raster.mcam?dl=0

[medaq]

Thank you Jparis, That does the trick. Ill be back up to speed in a few more weeks.

 

[Guest]

Just now, medaq said:

Thank you Jparis, That does the trick. Ill be back up to speed in a few more weeks.

 

Before the check surfaces it was a real trick to get that done.....those helped...

 

[medaq]

8 minutes ago, JParis said:

Before the check surfaces it was a real trick to get that done.....those helped...

 

I noticed in the 2018 beta, more check surfaces functionality was added to some of the tool paths also. Also loving the new surface manager to add different values to different sections. Not sure if I should go forward on 2018 beta, and stop working in 2017 already. 

[Guest]

I am using 2018 for my contract work.....at my full-time, still 2017

If you do move, as always, keep an eye on things....

[jlw™]

I hate the raster path.  Old school parallel is so much easier to control and get good paths.

[Guest]

Raster will chew on things better as it calculates a 3D stepover....the old school parallel only calculates a 2D step over...

This is why on surfaces that are not near flat, Raster is a better choice...

Raster is Parallel on steroids

 

Edited April 20, 2017 by Guest

[jlw™]

If they could get that dang edge rollover easier to control I would use it but I can get sufficient paths easier with parallel.

[Mick]

21 minutes ago, jlw™ said:

If they could get that dang edge rollover easier to control I would use it but I can get sufficient paths easier with parallel.

Even when looking at parallel, I go straight to Flowline... unless it is multiple surfaces of course

I agree, that edge rollover thing is a step backwards

[crazy^millman]

Multi Axis Parallel in 3 Axis output and life is good.

[Redfire427]

1 hour ago, JParis said:

Raster will chew on things better as it calculates a 3D stepover....the old school parallel only calculates a 2D step over...

 

 

Not so sure I would agree with this statement.  Both of them calculate stopover  in a 2D manner. Look at a raster cut from the top view. All the motion is completely "parallel.

 

Carmen

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Redfire427 said:

Not so sure I would agree with this statement.  Both of them calculate stopover  in a 2D manner. Look at a raster cut from the top view. All the motion is completely "parallel.

 

Carmen

Yes but if you look at your posted code you'll find that as the surface moves away from flat, the XY stepover begins to vary with the added Z component, the Parallel will maintain the set stepover...

Don't take my word on it...by all means, ask your reseller or CNC

Edited April 21, 2017 by Guest

[crazy^millman]

John is correct and if you are worrying about scallop height that is not the best toolpath to use. Why I like the MW toolpaths since they act like the new HST toolpaths, but have more options that the HST toolpaths done for getting in and out of the cut.

[Codeworx]

1 hour ago, 5th Axis CGI said:

Multi Axis Parallel in 3 Axis output and life is good.

This

[Newbeeee™]

13 hours ago, jlw™ said:

If they could do away with get that dang edge rollover altogether easier to control I would use it but I can get sufficient paths easier with parallel.