Author Topic: Bad Rectangle code  (Read 4335 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Monafly

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Bad Rectangle code
« on: October 19, 2013, 12:12:52 AM »
Attached are shots of an attempt to cut a simple rectangle, but the extra code (circle in the upper right) is not correct and looks like a bug to me. It is specified for a .5" cutter.

Thanks.

Offline ger21

  • Global Moderator
  • *
  • Posts: 6,127
    • View Profile
    • The CNC Woodworker
Re: Bad Rectangle code
« Reply #1 on: October 19, 2013, 06:11:32 AM »
Make sure your IJ mode is correct.
Gerry

2010 Screenset
http://www.thecncwoodworker.com/2010.html

JointCAM Dovetail and Box Joint software
http://www.g-forcecnc.com/jointcam.html

Offline Ron Ginger

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 921
    • View Profile
Re: Bad Rectangle code
« Reply #2 on: October 19, 2013, 07:51:51 AM »
Please post a job file. That will give me  all the settings from the New Job and Tool Select. Also tell me what version you are using. I recall working on something that looked like this, I believe from the tool to large for the cut. The top circles look  like the ramp in code.

Offline Monafly

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Bad Rectangle code
« Reply #3 on: October 19, 2013, 12:24:55 PM »
Here's more of the job file, with an additional circular hole that is correct. All I'm trying to do here is cut a .9" wide slot across a 1" piece that also has the included hole bored into it so I don't really care about the ends (top and bottom) of the slot. Why wouldn't I be able to cut a .9" slot with a .5" cutter?
Using version 1.0.13
« Last Edit: October 19, 2013, 12:30:37 PM by Monafly »

Offline Ron Ginger

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 921
    • View Profile
Re: Bad Rectangle code
« Reply #4 on: October 19, 2013, 01:17:22 PM »
Ok, I see exactly what you see, so clearly there is a problem here. I will have to work on this.

Offline Ron Ginger

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 921
    • View Profile
Re: Bad Rectangle code
« Reply #5 on: October 22, 2013, 09:14:00 PM »
I fixed that, and a couple other bugs as well. I dont understand how that all ever got out in the first  place.

There will be one problem though- I cannot cut a rectangle that is narrower than 2 times the tool diameter. We use a helical ramp into the work with a radius of .9 x toolDia, then it does a lead-in arc with a radius of the tool diameter.

The value .9*ToolDia was chosen because you cant helix into the work with a non-center cutting tool, like an insert carbide tool at much smaller radius.

Offline Monafly

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Bad Rectangle code
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2013, 01:15:39 AM »
Thanks for the fix-I'll download and try it shortly.

How does one do what I want-cut a rectangle that's smaller than 2x the cutter? I may have to just hand code this, but in my situation, I'm cutting all the way across a bar, so don't need the ramp. Would one of the other wizard choices work in this particular case?

It would be nice to be able to choose no ramp in or a much smaller ramp if one had a center cutting mill or a linear ramp rather than a circular one.

Offline Ron Ginger

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 921
    • View Profile
Re: Bad Rectangle code
« Reply #7 on: October 23, 2013, 07:21:37 AM »
I have not posted the new version yet, Ive got a couple other things to fix. It will probably be on the net in a week or two.

What you describe sounds more like an end facing job. Let me think about that, I may be able to make that a part of the surfacing operation.

You can select no ramp by setting ramp angle on the tool to be 90. Right now my error test code will object if the width is less than 2x tool, but I can fix that to test the ramp angle and allow 1x if its a 90 degree ramp. I will do that before I release the next version. Thanks for the suggestion.

Offline Monafly

  • Active Member
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Bad Rectangle code
« Reply #8 on: December 01, 2013, 04:44:45 PM »
It's been a month since you're previous response about a new version being out in a couple of weeks. Still encountering this bug and looking for a fix.

I assume that the bug in the attached file is the same problem, but on the chance that it's a different issue.