Machsupport Forum
G-Code, CAD, and CAM => LazyCam (Beta) => Topic started by: Sage on December 11, 2008, 02:41:44 PM
-
Sure would be nice if pocketing worked as well as shown on the video. - Click boom done.
I've attached a file that I can't get anything to pocket on.
I'm using LazyCam 2.61.
I loaded the dxf (autocad V12 and others tried) with various tolerances of .001 and .01 then cleaned and optimized. I select a 1/16 cutter, circular pocket.
I can select any of the rectangles in the dxf and press pocket and all I get is an offset inside the rectangle.
In fact the project list shows an offset was added instead of a pocket.
I looked at the dxf and for all reasonable zoom levels I see no disconnects or overlapping lines.
Got to be easier than this.
How do I have to hold my mouth and which foot do I stand on to get this program feature to work. :-\
Very disappointing. :'(
Sage
-
Sage,
sometimesyou have to move the arrow that is on the chain, around to a different spot.
Why this works, I have no idea but it does. Also, zooming in on each pocket helps as well.
Dave
-
I have found that I can not pocket either of your angled chains though so you're not completely crazy.
Maybe someone else can chime in here?
I have to be honest, I do not use Lcam anymore, just too flaky and couldn't deal with it ..... :D
Dave
-
Hi Sage,
The ones marked had lines on top of lines. The end ones showed 13 entities in cad where there should have been 10. The big one had 2 extra in it as well. Also changed the arcs to curves and all went well here.
RC
-
Sage, here are the ones that were doubled up, one on top of the other.
RC
-
Nice one, my friend - ;)
Dave
-
Hi Dave, never tried moving the start point around. Will keep that little tid-bit in my toolbox for the future.
Thanks,
RC
-
Sage,
Attached file is the one I ended up with.
Good Luck,
RC :)
-
Thanks Guys:
An interesting bunch of responses don't you think? Ranging from: the pocketing works if you zoom in or move the start point around, to: the drawing is defective. Got to wonder how zooming and moving makes the program ignore the defects. Obviously the program has defects of it's own. (nothing new there).
I'll admit my mistake on the extra entities. I recall now I was inserting the rectangles into an existing inner frame in the center of the outline and then I trimmed inbetween the rectangles (leaving the bits of frame still behind the rectangles.) instead of deleting the frame. I'll have to be careful of that (apparently).
I'm getting to be like budman68 - LazyCam is too quirky and I'm having trouble dealing with all the stange quirks and fighting it all the time to get it to produce results. But I'll persist because I have nothing else and it does lay the basic groundwork for the G-code to be done by hand.
Thanks for your help on this one. As usual this forum has come through.
Maybe someone should write a quirk manual ;).
BTW I've found a work around for not being able to re-order ENTITIES in a chain. (you can't re-order entities in a chain, only chains as a whole). If you have a chain, say a rectangle, that has entities in the opposite order you want to machine them. I've found you can fool it by asking for a lead-in line. In that process there is checkbox asking for CW or CCW lead-in. If you pick the direction you want for the lead-in it also re-orders the entities in the correct direction. Then, if you didn't really want the lead-in you can delete the chain generated for the lead-in from the list and the entities are left in the correct order. Sometimes it takes a couple of tries to delete the lead-in chain and be careful because the chains move around when you delete the lead-in. Check all of the chains after and be sure they are all still valid. (I suppose now soeone will point out another trick they discovered to do the same thing :-\ )
Thanks again. Now back to the project.
Sage
-
Overloaded:
When you said you changed arcs to curves what do you mean? I was using fillet function in AutoCad to get the rounded corners. Is there some other way of doing this?
Sage
-
Hi Sage,
First let me say that probably no one out there knows less about this than me. I just keep hammerin' at it because I love a challenge, am eager to learn and am a glutton for punishment. :)
As far as the arcs go, even after removing the extra entities one chain would not pocket so I converted the arcs and it pocketed fine. Dont know why and cannot explain it. Others have posted that saving the file as R12, (which it was) does this autimatically.
I can only tell you HOW I made it work. As is true with MOST of my solutions, I have virtually no knowledge of WHY. ::)
"Quirky"........"Flakey"......could probably come up with a few more...but if we can find a way to muddle through, you still cant beat the price.
And I like your Lead-in trick....that will go in my toolbox as well, thanks
Regards,
RC
-
Overloaded:
I think what you did requires some more explaination. I took the file you sent and I see now that your conversion fom arcs to curves (or whatever) has made separate chains, each with about 29 separate entities, for the very small curves in the corners of the end shapes. So how did you select the whole shape as an outline to create a pocket?
Also: forgetting the corner ones, I picked one of the rectangles to pocket. When I try to do the pocket I get the same results, i.e the software inserts an offset (as seen in the list) instead of a pocket. I tried the zoom trick - no help. Did you send an old file with the extra lines in it?
Sage
-
Each shape is a chain....many entities in each chain. I just select the chain and then pocket.
I may have gotten the files mixed up, did a lot of changing. Will send you another in a min.
RC
-
BTW
I don't see where you pulled that convert menu from I'm using Acad 2002.
I'll wait for the file. In the one you sent there are may chains making the corner shape. It needs to be all one chain to be ale to pick it as an outline and to pocket it.
Sage
-
Try this one Sage. It works OK here.
RC
-
Thanks. See my note above. I guess we're both on line at the same time.
Sage
-
Yeah...you gotta watch those edits. :)
I'm using AutoSketch..from Autodesk.
I select the curve, then right click in the box surrounding it and get the menu.
In the last dxf, I set them all to polylines and it is OK here. That also eliminates all of the dinky entities in the curve.
See pic.
RC
-
Ok I tried it and initially I still had multiple chains for the end shape. I changed my connection tolerance to .001 and then I had one chain for the whole shape. So far so good. This is another one to try to remember. I always forget.
But still when I pocket it I get an offset instead of a pocket. See attached screen grabs.
Man this is tedious.
Sage
-
OK Sage, Try this one here.
Let me know...then I gotta go to work..(and take it easy fir a while ;D)
RC
-
Ok, so I decided to step back a bit. I created a very simple rectangle with Acad 2002 rectangle feature. I saved it as a version R12 dxf. It's attached below. When I pocket it with a 1/16 cutter you can see that it does pocket but it seems to give up early on the pocket - at least from what I can perceive from the screen shot. It should continue the spiral right out to the edge.
Yet another issue to fugure out I guess.
Sage
-
Overloaded: I tried your file.
No. Sill only get an offset ,Picture attached.
Is there supposd to be 184 entities in chain 8?
My connection tolerance was set to .001
Sage
-
Sage, in your triangle, you have the finish set at .5 That's how much material will be left uncut.
Check the others and set it to 0.0000 on all and see what you get
Ooooops....I meant RECTANGLE !
-
Ok !!!! (posted at the same time overloaded suggested it - we must have been typing at the same time)
Call off the hounds. I figured it out.
On the pocket screen there are two data entry boxes - one called "Overhang" and the other "finish". I noticed the "finish" box had 0.500 in it (no idea how it got there, I've never used pocket before). The light went on when I looked at the simple rectangle I created and noticed that the blank area around the spiral looked to be about 0.5" wide. I guess this "feature" is supposed to tell the routine how much to leave around the edge of the pocket. (What for I ask - but what do I know)
I guess the reason it would not pocket the shapes in the other file is they were all not much more thn 1/2" in height (actually about (3/4") so the pocket was ended before it got started.
I set the "finish" value to 0.0 and the pockets work now.
Can't say I didn't read the manual on this one >:D ('cause there isn't even a basic one)
I surmised the "finish" value might have someting to do with the smoothness of the pocket (finish - get it) such that maybe it went over it a few times to make it smooth, so I ignored it. (don't touch the controls you know nothing about)
So the question is: what does the "overhang" value do?? now that I guess I've figured out the "finish" doesn't control the "finish".
Yet another one to add to the list.
This is too much !!
Sage
-
Thanks for all your help on this one Overloaded.
This helping each other is what makes this forum so good.
Now back to the project.
Thanks again.
Sage
-
Sage....good timing, you're catching on.
The finish settings will leave enough material to do an offset at a slower feedrate and maybe another cutter climbing to give a fine finish after the pocket is cut.
The Overhang is used when cutting an open profile...like a single line to represent a slot for instance. It is the distance that the cutter will travel beyond the end of the line. (+/- something like that , I've never used it though)
Grinnin now aint ya ?
RC
-
Almost.
I went back to my original files and cleaned up the extra lines etc. Created a dxf and made sure the finish and overhang were set to 0.0.
I tried a pocket on the corner chain and - nothing, didn't do anything except report that the pocket was created - nothing added to the project at all - . The other rectangles were fine.
I remembered what was mentioned previously by budman68 about zooming in and moving the start point dot for the chain. I grabbed the start point and arbitrarily dragged it to a new place at the beginning of the diagonal line at the bottom left and 'voila' the chain pocketed fine.
I didn' do any converion of arcs to whatever either. I did export it as V2000 DXF though but I don't thank that made any differencr.
So there is something to this start point issue. Which is just another one of those quirks I'll have to remember I guess.
Attached is the file so you can try it yourself as I have described. I'd be interested to know what you find.
Sage
-
Hmmm.
FYI, Excellent....except for this guy on the end. Dragging dont help...zooming dont help.
Good looking chain.
Changed arcs to curves and then it pockets.
Sage, did you see if it actually posts code even though the display doesnt show the paths ?
Like you said earlier, the info box shows that it pocketed sucessfully. Just wondering.
The only way I can get it to pocket, and show, is to convert the arcs.
This is why there can be no manual. Modern computers dont have enough storage for one. :D
RC
-
Sage , Is the right one a copy or mirror of the left one ? Might be a clue ?
RC
-
:)OK, here is a weirdness that adds to the confusion....MINE anyway. ::)
As illustrated below:
All settings remain the same in LC.
1. Draw a rectangle....Pockets FINE
2. Fillet the corners .09 R....Pockets FINE
3. Chop off the corner, leave the corners SHARP.....Pockets FINE
4. Put the same fillet in the 2 remaining corners...NO POCKET
Something about the angle and the fillets together ? ? ? ? ?
Not like I really NEED this to work, it's just buggin' the HELL out of me.
RICH,
If you get a chance, could you look at it ? I'm sure ART's too busy.
Might save this for a clue when LC goes in for the overhaul.
Thanks ,
RC
-
Here is another neat one.
SOMETIMES..when the selected chain wouldn't pocket, did a MOUSE MOVE just a tad and then it pocketed. Ooops it back to where it was and then it pocketed OK. But that only worked 2 times, cant get it to work now.
I've got mine so messed up now, I don't know what to expect.
Cool stuff,
RC
-
The program is definitely screwed up (IMHO).
You asked if the right angled rectangle was a mirror of the left. The answer is no. They were both rectangles originally. I offset the 45deg corner angle across them and trimmed the rectangles.
You might be on to something with the filleting of some of the corners. Maybe the ones that are not-so-sharp cause some sort of problem with the math behind lazycam when it comes to calculating a tool path. Some of those fillets are barely visible. In fact there is probably no need to fillets them at all because the cutter, being round is going to leave them round anyway - maybe even bigger radius than the fillets.
I can't figure it out. It's going to take the programmer to figure it out. I just need a way to work around it so I can continue with the project. Unfortunately doing the G-code manually is beyond my current abilities.
I can't find the convert function you have in Sketch in my full version of AutoCad. I'm sure it's there but (if you know AutoCad) it's a bear to find things. I'll look deeper soon.
BTW. What disturbs me about this and every problem we here on this forum discover (and others) is, what becomes of these reports. Are they all logged for investigation and hopefully correction or are we all wasting our time??? I presume the latter (unfortunately).
Thanks.
Sage
-
Hi Sage,
" - maybe even bigger radius than the fillets."
The cutter is .030"R and the fillets are .093"R so the angle of the arc shouldn't matter. (I'm guessing)
The HELP index is handy, but you probably already looked there.
Good luck Sage,
RC
As far as the logging, don't know. LC will hopefully be addressed after LT is stable and the TURN function is removed.
There seem to be reports of multitudes that use LC on a regular basis, some every day, that have no problems.
But these are apparently folks that know the ins and outs of CAD/CAM very well.
I do not fit into that category.
If I needed it to make my living, I would be better off with commercial software. Then use LC where it would fit.
Best of luck,
RC
-
I've been having very similar problems pocketing with LC (http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,9727.0.html). There seems to be no rhyme or reason as what is occurring. Sometimes it will will not pocket, make a minor change and it pockets OK, undo the change and it still works. I've not been able to find a consistent pattern and have undertaken a search for replacement for LC. It is a shame to have to purchase a much more expensive and powerful program when the capabilities of LC are all that I need but I need to have them work as advertised. I've made a commitment to Mach3 and now I'm getting concerned that I will encountered similar glitches as I've experienced in LC and they will be addressed in the same manner as the LC problem.
-
Don't know if you've used Help in Autocad. Pretty old school. If you type a word you get about a hundred things on the list and yes the one you're looking for is probably there but I think the list has every occurrence of the word in the help file. It does not help to add more words to narrow the search.
I'm a pretty basic user of AutoCad so maybe I'm missing something. I usually get frustrated and start looking for it myself rather than look through 100 unrelated items.
I'm sure convert arc to ?? is there somewhere
(P.S.) what did you convet them to again?
Sage
-
Sage,
Polylines OR Curves...either one seems to work when an Arc doesn't. I think the difference is, although both are many short lines, a Poly is seen as 1 entity by the CAD.
-
Sage,
This is from ACadLite98. Then select the arc and enter Y for yes in the command line.
May be similar to yours....maybe not.
BTW...I dont search the help file...click the INDEX tab and all is in alphabetical order. Easy to find what you want that way.
RC
-
The program is definitely screwed up (IMHO).
That's the major issue I have and exactly why I'm done with LCam.
It's just way too flaky and doesn't repeat the same thing half the time.
I guess I'm impatient but I honestly don't want to be wasting time with something that's un-necessary if I can be busy being productive making chips, not headaches from frustration - ;)
Dave
-
I get your drift Dave. :D
I sometimes think LazyCam was named wrong.
Maybe something like: "More Labor Intensive and Time Consuming than Any Other SW on the Market" would be more appropriate. ::) (for us hobby types who are not well versed in the trade anyway).
It's sort of like, If you wanted to go into the woods to cut some logs, would you use a $600 chain saw or a $5 hatchet....with a loose handle ? :P
There's bigger fish out there fryin', looks like LC is on the back burner for now.
RC :)
-
Well I won't be too hard on LCam becasue without it I wouldn't get anthing done. I'd rather be making chips too but I can't make the chips without the code.
If you going to rename LAZY Cam I can think of a better word that still begins with L and can still end with ZY. L##zy Cam.
-
Hi All,
Will look at the dxf you posted RC. I never got into Lazycam Mill part of the program, so i am a big zero
on using it. I was stuck in the Lazycam Turn web. ;) I figured you guys would figure it out then enlighten me on using it
by writing the manual. ;D Let me take a look at the file and will let you know what i see on my end.
RICH
-
Hi RICH, I remember now....you only using LC-TURN.
I'd forgotten all about that or I wouldn't have bothered you with it. As I said...I'm just curious.
Thanks a bunch for looking at it though.
Regards,
RC
-
Just a few general comments.
I don't use polylines / always explode them into lines, arc's, circles / basic elements.
I don't know about Autocad light. At one time it was a PITA if you got a light version and had to use the generated dxf in some other program or even within Autocad, but that was a long time ago.
The square, square with rounded corners were polylines, while the mitered square was a combination polyline and line ( which you could create as a single polyline if you wanted to) and the last one was individual elements. don't know if mixing them up creates any quirks in LazyCam.
Other than that the drafting looked ok ( just checked end points with units set to 4 places and not 2), no double lines, etc..
As far as Lazycam Mill goes, i just didn't have the energy to hack my way thru it. Fooled with it some and let it go, but, I had the option to use other purchased software. The turn part was enough hours spent.
Sorry, can't be of much more help,
RICH
-
Hey,
Just thinking,could it be that it needs the lead in to the next piece to follow some of the rules
similar to compensation. Drag the point to make a second move before the next profile?
Just a brain cloud. Isn't Chip well versed in mill?
RICH
-
Tanks Rich,
I see that saving as r12 only converts SOME of the arcs.....weird.
Redrew and saved as 2004 and all looks clean and saved as arcs.
But, LC still doesnt like the second one from the left.
Beyond me......
Hi Chip...if you're watching, do you mind to take a look ?
Thanks Guys,
RC
-
Just for kicks i decided to try using LazyCam Mill.
Your recent dxf post worked for me.
I found an extra vertical line in the first square when lazycam imported it, right side of it, deleted it, drug the chain up so there was only one in projects, clicked on each drawn figure, did the pocket thing for each, posted code, if i remember correctly.
I think the secret was that I told Lazycam Mill not to torque me off or i would ban it from the pc and it listened. ;D
RICH
MODIFIED: IT WAS A LAYER THAT I DELETED. SEE NEXT POST ON WHAT I DID
-
Rich:
Do me a favour please and grab the DXF from my post in reply 25 - back quite a ways. That is pretty much the original file. Work your magic on it and see if you can figure out what works on the right hand mitred rectangle. The other rectangles seem to be ok. Including the opposite mitred block on the left. This file is all arcs and lines. (at least that's how I drew it)
Sage
-
Sorry, but bad memory on what i did.
See attached.
-
Sage,
Dinner about to be served. Will try the file posted in #25 after eating.
We'll see if a glass of wine helps. ;) In the mean time you may want to try what i just posted.
Pure luck my friend!
RICH
MODIFIED: INITIAL TEST OF YOUR DXF POSTED IN #25. NOTE THE CUTTER DIAMETER I USED
-
Now THAT takes the cake.
That line IS NOT and NEVER WAS any part of what I have here.
Thanks RICH, I'll bug you NO MORE on this.
Sage, Astr and everyone else......GOOD LUCK.
All done,
RC
-
Overloaded:
We got way off track there. I was just trying to start over with the original.
Please stay in the loop. You were on to something I think.
Rich:
I see you couldn't pocket the right hand end object (yet) which was the point here.
Using a .01 cutter is pointless since - who has such a cutter? - not me. The point would be to do it with a 1/16 cutter.
It works ok on the left hand end block which is for all intents the same as the right end.
Sage
-
Sage,
Only logic used on my end was to use a cutter that was half or less than the radius of the curve.
I just kind of remember that ( which probably is not relevent). I figure if you can
get profiles using some parameters in the tools, then you should be able to work your way up or down
and see where it faults. Don't remember how you change the lead in or direction but it's different than the
other profiles. Now this may sound stupid, but simplify the drawing ie; just take the profile that is not working
by itself and see if it will work, or change the order of all the profiles, or variations on the theme, no logic here
just hacking away in the dark.
Play with it as i really have no magic on my end.
RC,
Where you going, I thought you like a challenge.
RICH
-
Not going anywhere RICH,......just laying low until some of this makes enough sense to take seriously. Seriously. :)
I do like a challenge....but one that presents at least a REMOTE chance of being overcome.
This is more than challenging...I think it is impossible the way it is now.
Those thousand or so trouble free users would probably be laughing their asses of at us if they were following this board. :D
As long as there are more happy than sad.....this may be as good as it gets.
BTW, there IS a manual for LC. The Govt. has it stored away in the "X-Files".
And to top it off, the batteries are dead in my magic wand.
RC 8)
-
Sage
post a fresh dxf of your drawing.or your latest version of what you want to cut out.also what tool you would like to use and the feed and speed for it plus final depth.a description of the stock you will use.
i will be using lcam 300.2 to sort it with. i allready looked at some of your other drawings,but post your latest and greatest.
bill
-
Hi, Guy's
I've posted hundred's of post's and still use it, LazyCam hasn't been worked on for over 1 1/2 year's.
Hopping that now that changes in Mach3 has slowed down some that some work will be done on it.
So as work on LazyTurn progresses and the plan is to integrate it into LazyCam, At some point fixes-es may Happen.
Thanks, Chip
-
docltf:
I don't have anything newer than the code in message 25 but I've attached it again here anyway.
I don't expect (or want) someone to write new code for this. It was just another example of LousyCam going wrong (apparently) and also an exercise to figure out a work around. Having said that I need to get a piece someting like this one done sometime soon. I'll mess with it some more to see if I can gather any clues.
I can see your plan of attack varying some of the parameters to see what happens. I use that method myself - it's a good one. I didn't mean to be critical. Just pointing out that sometime trial and error parameters and reality don't jive.
Material Aluminum. Thickness of part is 1/2" for outer profile. I'll probbaly modify the drawing to add an offset to mill outer profile as well.
The rectangular and corner pockets are 0.15" deep.
Cutter - whatever willl accommodate the .093 radius - (3/16dia). I set 1/16 in LazyCam. Maybe I should have tried 3/16.
Speed and feed to suit the cutter and a mill/drill machine.
Sage
-
Ok. Lets call it CrazyCam. I got it to work. ;D
Just after I posted above a light went on. Why was I using a 1/16 cutter when the maximum possible is 3/16 for the .093 radius corners? ???
Drawing from docltf's process:
I tried a 3/16 cutter and voila the corners pocketed. Yet they still won't pocket with a smaller 1/16 cutter. That's just plain weird ???
So what kind of work around "rule" do you derive from this. Try every possible cutter?
Too wierd for me ::)
But I guess I can't complain, the solution was found - again.
Please try it yourselves with the file posted in my last message (above) and see if it was some fluke that it worked this time.
(crossing my fingers)
Sage
-
Way to go Sage......you are to be commended. ;)
.17 NO GOOD
.18 NO GOOD
.1875 GOOD
Weird.
I may have a similar profile with a 6" radius in the corners.
Anybody got a 12" endmill that I can borrow ? ::)
RC :)
-
I remember now a trick from Chip.
Scale the dwg up, LCam it, then scale it back.
It works here. Can use any tool then.
Have to check Chip's posts for the details.
RC :)
-
Sage
attached is a lcam file for you to work with.the pocket paths are for .0625 tool. i used lcam ver 300.2 and ten minutes,connection setting for your drawing .001. the process went in this order.
1 import drawing
2 turn leds off
3 clean
4 optimise
5 made sure each chain that is to be pocketed will do a inside offset with a .0625 tool
6 the chains that would not offset inside properly or looked wrong were corrected with this process.
do a outside offset,delete the original,then create a new inside chain .then see if the new chain will pocket.
i also posted a pic of the left corner,did you want that junction to be that tight.the other corner has a radious at that junction. lcam is real touchy with trashy drawings and small arcs.but you can work with it.
bill
-
I'm going to have to absorb and try what you just told me, but this is just way too much to have to do.
That one corner should have been filleted like the others. I guess I missed it.
Curious to find out if that one corner was the cause of all the grief. Is the same corner on the opposite end also un-filleted.
Not trusting LCam too much I'd be afraid scaling and un-scaling might screw up the drawing. I'd have to export the g-code and convert it back to DXF to check it thoroughly. I have a program that will do that.
How much do you scale it up?
It depends right? :D I know, whatever works right.
Sage
-
sage
when i did your drawing ,it was not scaled up or down. the corner on the right hand side of the drawing looked better than the one on the left,but it gave more trouble with the pocket. i cured it by doing a
outside offset, delete the original,then do a new inside offset. then pocket that offset. your cad puts something in those chains that lcam has trouble with. but when you do a offset you create a lcam chain that it can work with.
delete the old and replace with the new. the chain that gave you trouble is now gone.
bill
-
SAGE,
Still being curious i put the first three figures on a different level, turned them off, and re dxf'd the file out
as a V12. I couldn't find anything wrong with the fourth figure in CAD. Like you guys I couldn't get a pocket until
i got to the .187" dia cutter. I then oops'ed back and started to just play with the lead-in's and start point and things started
to work fine. It just didn't like the upper corner for some reason. Here is a screen shot of one that worked. Didn't do a hundred of them as i figured you would prefer to have fun. I keep this up and just may start using it! :)
RICH
-
RICH:
I guess we have another set of variables now. I notice you have switched to zig-zag pocket fill. How does your process react to the original circular fill?
Also, there is little point in having a lead-in on an inside pocket (IMHO). I'm not sure how you started on that.
Although it is nice to figure out what works at all, it would be good to stick to a set of standard tests. We started with a circular pocket with no lead-in. How can we get that to work? Please test that scenerio with your process. Does changing the cutter still have the same effect? I'm getting a bit lost when the whole ballgame is changing.
Trying everything has some merit in that you might find something that always works but the investigation process doen't seem to scientific so far.
To bad the programmer who created this monster can't chime in here. Some insight from the prorammer would go a long way.
Anyone know how to contact that person??
Sage
-
sage
here is another lcam drawing of your dxf.it has not been scaled.you can pocket it anyway you wan't zig zag or spiral.was tested with tools from .015 to rad max.
the cleaning and redoing of the chains, was explained in the earlier post. you are having trouble with the process now,but it is not really that bad.
bill
-
Sage,
Your mission, should you accept it, will be to bring the fourth profile into the custody of user input using available provided
tools.The fourth profile has been recognized as exhibiting elusive LazyCam behavior.This behavior must stop to benifit those of us who know not what to do. Recent surveilance has shown the cuplrit to be in the upper fourth quadrant associating with pulldown menus of questionable functioning. As always, should you get caught in your LazyCam endeavors, this Moderator will disclaim any knowledge of your LazyCam investigative activities. Good luck Sage on your mission. This post will come to an end with clicking of the post button. ;D
RICH
-
OK. I guess I got everyone annoyed now. Sorry. :(
Thanks for your help :-*
I guess I was happy a few posts back when I chose a 3/16" cutter and ALL of the profiles pocketed without issue.
I think we are all getting frustrated with something we have no power to fix.
The problem and symptoms are documented well enough here (the real purpose of startng this thread) so that the programmer can figure it out. Assuming there is some mechanism to advise him of that.
Thanks Again
Sage
-
Hi Sage,
Check out Reply#5 of this topic: http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,8479.0.html
Might shed a little light on the subject...if you haven't seen it.
Cheers,
RC
-
Also,
Replys #20, 25 and 30 of this one: http://www.machsupport.com/forum/index.php/topic,8291.0.html
Regards,
RC
-
SAGE,
I don't get annoyed. All of this is a fun hobby for me and enjoy it all and even have fun with
Mission Impossible statements ( remember that show?). The posts RC listed give you good insight on the program.
You can spend hours fooling with something. Sometimes it's the thing to do if your in the mood. Let not your heart be troubled by some quirk in a program. It's when you pay big bucks for something and you get poop,now that's annoying. Every program out there has some poop, you just have to go for a long enough walk along the trail to step in it. The more walks on different trails you take lets you find out which trail may be worth walking along. Sometimes you just have to hop the fence to continue taking the walk, who knows why someone put it there and when if ever it will be taken down.
I'm still walking around, but on a different trail, just give a yell when you step in deep poop and we'll
sniff around and find ya.
RICH
-
Rich, I will say this, if there is poop to be found in VCarve pro, I have yet to find it. The only thing I have found is true happiness and a pure and stable environment.
I'm sure someone could find something to rip apart about it as you can with anything if you look deep enough but chances are, I'm not that sharp enough to find it. I have had no issues at all with this program, not one, and it is everything and more than what people are saying about it. I get work done so much faster and it allows me to have more time with the family since creating jobs has never been easier- ;)
Dave
-
I will reiterate that the main purpose for posting the problem I was having with LCam was to document the problem so it can be corrected and so others can see it and read a possible solution.
It appears Art is probably aware of all the quirks and when (if) he gets around to recoding the program those quirks will be gone and, as is usually the case with code, a new bunch will arise ;).
I guess we just have to sit back and see what happens.
For now I'm actually quite happy with the program. Each quirk I've found has been worked around (with the help of others here - thanks) and I keep going forward. I mostly use it to generate the math of the curves and then build on that code manually. Most times I don't even bother with setting depth-of-cut because the hundreds of lines of repetitive code generated by LCam are more sensibly handled with subroutines which I write myself.
Since we worked around the latest pocketing issue I'm happy again.
One note on what Art has posted in his replies though:
I'm not sure why he goes to such great lengths to FIX bad drawings in LCam, such as lines that don't join etc etc. and thereby implementing things like the connection tolerance. Second guessing the human just opens up the file to mis-interpretation and quirky action.
IMHO if he can detect a problem then the program should just indicate to the user there is a problem in plain english (not in typical Windows cryptic fashion) and let the human fix it in the originating program. I'm sure the program could even point out the co-ordinates of the offending issues like "lines not joined at X2.234 Y5.234 Do you want to connect or Cancel.
Mach3 does it now when arc end points don't end up where they should be. It doesn't try to fix it. It just lets you know and refuse to go any further.
Enough said.
Sage