I have a question about this case:
*I have steep wall 1 deg.
*Max stepover distance 1.6 mm
*Step up 10mm
Ofcourse on vertical wall - there is no step up generated, that is OK.
What is the limitation ?
When should I expect the step up level path generated?
It is based on left stock? what value?
I have not used adaptive cutting much, as of yet, but could the cause be your max stepover is greater than the amount of draft on the walls? Keep in mind a 25mm tall, 1 degree wall will have less than .5mm of draft.
You might want to experiment with the settings to get a feel for its behaviour. Perhaps try using a smaller amounts for max stepover and step up.
yes, I just wanted to know what to expect.
When step up tool path will show up.
I did this test:
(If anybody is interested - prt attached)
wall 1 deg,
stepover 0.5mm, step up 1mm
levels are generated in 5mm distance (could be ok, lower tool path milled lefted stock)
first level is generated at hight 35 mm
(0.5 mm stock is in hight 28mm)
Also found such behavior related to changes that should not affect entire tool path:
First body (from the left) and second body are the same but there is subtracted slot on second body.
tool path is much diffferent.
Third body - one wall is tilted more. Toool path is even worse.
@AlexanderFreund can you please take a look at it?
Especially on the 3rd part from the left.
I think it can break the tool.
(you can read posts above also.)
Stepover is 0,5 but in that higth tool load is more then 1mm = tool will be broken.
I have wrote the Gtac and they answer me som egenral behaviour, stocks and tolerances, ans some workarounds,
but for example increasing stepover to 10mm is not a solution.
Hey @Juraj ,
hope you are doing well :-) Interesting topic with walls that only have a small draft.
So in our tests for Bottom Up Cutting we found out we need to balance between being accurate with the step up and the amount of stepover that needs to be removed to stay efficient. In the machine tests we found out, that we should connect it to the tolerances being used.
So I guess the answer for you is to make you In- and Outtolerance smaller. Of course, this will increase the toolpath generation performance, but then it is cutting much smaller regions.
I tried with an Outtolerance of 0.01 mm (green toolpath). Feel free to adjust to your need.
Let me know if this helps :-)
@AlexanderFreund Thank you
Okay I just need to hear that this is not some bug or problem what is not handled yet.
"Balance between being accurate with the step up and the amount of stepover that needs to be removed to stay efficient." - Understand.
So to be sure we should always set tighter tolerance. Thats how I understand your explanation.
It also look that with tighter tolerance the step-up is preffered but it means smaller stepover.
This is OK for machinig, etc?
Thats the point. If you add a lot of intermediate cuts, the stepovers will be so small, that the tool doesn't have a big amount of material to cut.
Therefore it might increase the tool wear, because most of the roughing tools can't take too less stepover. They need a minimum amount of the cutter in use, otherwise you have some kind of grinding effect.
Depends on the material how this is affecting the tool life.
The default values for Bottom Up Cutting should work fine for most of the cases, but a default cannot solve all the geometries out there. But we are always happy to hear your feedback to further improve those default settings.
Recommendation would be to do the biggest chunks of Roughing with Adaptive Milling and do a classic Rest Milling with a High Feedrate Cutter aftwerwards. Some tools can even combine both technologies.
Again, depends on the material, geometry and which surface finish you want to reach.
Another option you could do is use a Z level cut after the adaptive milling. Make it cut conventional then edit the tool path to reverse it. Ive been using this a lot more than rest milling... faster to generate and great control.
Would be awesome to get this funcitonality with a check box inside z level instead of having to edit the toolpath.
Changes require regeneration / reversing agian
It is hard to cover every use case that is out there with default values. But I understand your concerns for such a specific case.
Like @Dstryr was suggesting, cutting these cases with a different strategy would possibly make more sense. I like the idea of having an option to decide if it should cut from Top to Bottom or Bottom to Top.