Ive tested this operation with default setting:
It seems that in first level the cut depth is much bigger:
The same result was with 3D containment.
in Tube finish is ok:
did you enable Roll Tool Over Edges option in cutting parameters?
If you want to avoid tool rolling over edges I think you have to extend tube surface as explained in the documentation:
extend Central curve too.
yes, I extended central curve and I have extended surface a little.
But tube rough should compute path with IPW so result is wrong in this case I think.
To do workaround for machining the ipw is not good solution.
Only in case if this operation doesnt support IPW for generating paths.
I tried it again and it is much better, but I had to use roll over the edges.
Without roll over edges:
(3D containment is turned on.)
I am interested to know if you think that the results after implementing the suggested workflow are satisfactory, or there are still open issues.
on the usability side - we have an enhancement request to address it in a more automatic way, but if we do that - we are leaving behind other things, so I am also interested on the priority of automatic path extension based on the IPW. what do you think?
I just thought that when I turn on the 3D containment the tool path will be automatically extended (like cavity mill etc) and I thought that it was a bug.
I dont now what everything else is behind this. I just did some tests.
To be honest I used once tube finishing but I did roughing by pre-drilling, hole milling and cavity milling (polycarbonate).
I am little bit afraid of using tube rough with lollypop tool for roughing (rigidity and time)
Thanks Juraj for your prompt response
Turning on the 3D containment option would only contain the tool path to all locations where the tool is in contact with the In Process Workpiece (IPW) to prevent air cutting. In order to add moves you have to extend the coverage using a different method.