1
Video P*r*o*b*i*n*g / Re: MachCloud point viewer program
« on: July 13, 2008, 05:03:11 PM »
Can someone explain the features within the Cloud and Mesh drop down menu items.(Or point me to documentation)
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Bang head on keyboard... ThanksThe triplet points, are they the exact object boundary or boundary offset by probe radius?how precise do the triplet point have to be(within backoff)?
Not sure I understand you here. Can you expand a little. But if it helps - don't confuse MY backoff with any G31 (internal)
If so, then you don't HAVE to use the 2.5D routine to create the boundary. You can create that by any number of means, even by hand and feed it into the 3D routine.
All may not be lost yet. From what I can tell your interest is in the 3D probing rather than 2.5D and you'd just (ideally) use the 2.5D to produce the boundary for the 3D probing routine - is that correct?
If so, then you don't HAVE to use the 2.5D routine to create the boundary. You can create that by any number of means, even by hand and feed it into the 3D routine. Check out the attached image and you'll see what I mean. This shows a table with the object (the rough star shape) to be (3D) probed overlapping the table. The small circles show the points (at some arbitrary stepover) that need to be probed and of course the small crosses represent wasted probing in standard routines. The arrows show the points that you could enter into the triplet file by hand, in this case 17 of them. Depending on your amount of "waste" space and the complexity of your object you may find it worthwhile to try this approach. Remember your boundary profile doesn't have to be hugely accurate to cut down dramatically on the waste probing. This example has a saving of nearly 40% over standard routines (crosses / (crosses + circles) * 100)
That, as they say, is a very good question. I'm intrigued as to what you have in mind. Maybe you have a feature for the ? ? ? tab.
The answers: Currently my 2.5D probing routine will not cope with not being able to go all around the object. Why? because it wasn't designed to do that and it will hit limits, soft hard or physical.
Re: the efficiency of my 3D routine: The less rectangular the object, the more efficient it is over a "standard" bed o nails routine. I'm thinking there's probably a nice mathematical equation for calculating the actual efficiency and it might be based on something like this: Calculate the area of the rectangular bounding box of the object. Calculate the actual area of the object. Divide the former by the latter giving a measure of efficiency. Obviously the more real estate that is NOT probed by mine but that IS probed by the standard, then the more efficient mine is.
Hope this helps.
Ian
Not sure I'm with you there looker1, can you expand a little?