V4 Build 19
I am in the process of uploading a new V4 build to fix a problem that I’ve seen before but I didn’t know exactly how to replicate until today. There was a bug where the waterline path linker could run the tool into uncut stock if the “Machine Geometry +” was used with the right type of model. It’s tough to describe so I’ll post some pictures below:
This one shows where the bad links are:
This is the 3D view of the same path. You have to imagine that the stock is not machined between the spokes because the outline of the part was used as the machine boundary
.
The code will now check to see if the path crosses the ambient area before linking two paths without a retract:
This bug required a lot of specific things to be present before it would cause trouble. Unfortunately, when it did manage to show up, the results could have been a broken tool. This is a really good fix.
V4 Build 15
I just uploaded V4 Build 15 to http://www.grzsoftware.com/v2dl.php . It includes a few fixes for bugs found by Gerry and some optimizations that I made internally to save memory and speed up processing. This fix seems to be significant for the “Linking” part of the toolpath calculations and when you save a toolpath. I hope to find a few more big wins like this in the next few weeks.
V4 Build 12
I just uploaded V4 build 12 to: http://www.grzsoftware.com/v2dl.php . I made a number of little changes to the UI and one big functional change, the new “Set Machine Region” command. You can now define one of more regions to contain the toolpath without having to pull the trick of shrinking the stock to fool MeshCAM. I think this will be a huge benefit and that it will see lots of use. You can also load a DXF file but please note that only DXF V12 is well-supported. Later versions can be hit-or-miss.
Let me know how it works for you.
V4 Beta Available
I just uploaded the first build of V4 to the normal location, http://www.grzsoftware.com/v2dl.php . I think it should be stable enough to use regularly and it will install next to V3 or V2 without overwriting anything. Just be aware that this build will expire in a month so you’ll have to download the new versions as they are released to try them.
V4: Adaptive Waterline
I got adaptive waterline working now and I think it puts the parallel finish version to shame. Please ignore the number of retracts in the images below, I disabled the normal linking so the cutting passes would be more clear.
As you can see, there are more layers dedicated to the shallow areas of the model compared to the steeper part. One more:
The UI is still not done but I’m pretty sure I’ll use a pull-down box to set the adaptive stepdown to none, normal, fine, superfine. What I’m not sure is whether or not to call it adaptive stepdown- I’m pretty sure there is a better name or phrase that would better describe its function. Any ideas?
V3 Update, V4 Progress
I uploaded a new version of V3 a couple of days ago with a couple of infrequent but important bug fixes. If you run Check for Updates it should be there waiting.
I’m about 70% done with the adaptive stepping for waterline and it’s going very well. I’ve redone it twice trying to find the right way to do it and if the current attempt works then it should be a really good feature. The first failed attempt caused me to have to restructure the old code in a way that makes a conversion to mutithreaded code pretty easy. Once I convert to multiple threads, the calculation time for waterline code should drop a lot if you have multiple CPU cores. Nothing makes me happier than watching both cores on my laptop go to 100% during the calculations.
This should be the last major feature for the preview release of V4. I’ll probably just do a couple of minor bug fixes and UI improvements and the push it out for testing. I also spent a day updating my build system so it should make updates much more automated. Hopefully I can push out V4 betas very quickly once I’m ready.
V4: 2D DXF Support
When I was asking my resellers for requests for V4, one of the guys in Japan asked for the ability to load 2D DXF files and machine them. In the past I have always stayed away from 2D stuff because MeshCAM was never made to do it. In the past couple of years the waterline and pencil have gotten good enough that I think the feature would be useful. If you try to load a 2D dxf file you will get the following dialog:
If you click yes, a new 2D dxf loader will try to interpret the file and extrude the curves to a full 3d object. A before and after:
I add the word “try” above because I have now been reminded of why I dislike DXF files- they’re a minefield of compatibility problems. Thankfully, several forum members uploaded DXF files a few months ago for me to test with. Some of the uploaded files showed a amazing amount of insight into what might crash a program- there must have been a few fellow programmers out there.
Gerry gave a short explanation at that time of the various DXF versions and what changed in between- that was very helpful to get a starting point. I think I have V12 almost done and I’ll have to see how far I need to go forward in the specs to get it working for as many people as possible without growing the code to the point that it is unmaintainable.
I mention that this is a new DXF reader because the original 3D one was made to read the triangles only without getting caught up in the other details about 2D and the visual representation that change from version to version. The new loader in is Lua so I can quickly modify it without restarting MeshCAM.
Extruding 2D files may not be too useful to everyone but I promise that the 2D DXF code will be put to good use for other new features.
V4- Estimate Machining Time
After having it half-done for 2 years, I finally completed the Estimate Machining Time function.
I was debating some type of correction factor that would multiply the estimated time by some amount to try to give a more accurate estimate but that seems like a lot of extra UI and confusion when a disclaimer can do the job.
Minor V4 Refinnement
It isn’t often that I get a really strong statement from Gerry but he made a really good point about my new units dialog- he doesn’t ever want to see it and the more I thought about it, most people never need it since they don’t change units very often. For Gerry:
It will change to “Always use MM” if you select “MM”. Hope this helps streamline the process for most users.
V4 Work-in-Progress Update
I’ve spent some time working through the todo list for V4 in the past few days. One change, that may only be important to me, is to have the units dialog show the size of the geometry to be loaded. I thought this would be important because I regularly get files in both mm and in and I usually do not know what units were used until I open this file. By looking at the magnitude of the units, it’s pretty easy to tell which it is.
The bigger change is the new adaptive stepover code for parallel finishing. This was something I came up with a while ago that would give some of the benefits of a constant-scallop mode but without the brutal development that a constant-scallop mode would take. Basically, the code will analyze the model as the toolpath is being laid out and insert more parallel passes in steep areas. Before and after photos of both the x and y versions are shown below:
In the sample above I made sure to machine the whole stock so you could see the spacing change in the surrounding areas but this will also work if you constrain the machining area.
I have several questions for everyone here and I need some feedback. Just keep in mind that I am trying very hard to add features without complicating the UI. Also, I know that the ability to run this at arbitrary angles would be more useful but I do not think I’m ready for that yet- maybe in V5 or 6… or 7. On to the questions:
1) Is this useful?
2) How should I specify the parameters? Currently I have built-in parameters to let MeshCAM shrink the stepover by a factor of 5. I could let users specify a minimum and maximum stepover but this might require too much knowledge to understand the implications of the values and it complicates the UI. I am more inclined to leave a hidden factor and just adjust the stepover if the “adaptive” mode is chosen. If I go with this approach, would you expect the defined stepover to be the minimum or the maximum?
3) This seems like it might be a good “Newbie Mode” where you just pick the quality level, high, medium, or low, and MeshCAM would pick the minimum and maximum as a percentage of the tool diameter. Does this sound like it would have helped you when you were new to CNC/MeshCAM?
I am also looking at taking this code and porting it to the waterline algorithm which should be more widely applicable (I think).