New Test Release
I just uploaded a new test release that includes the fixed toolpath refinement and updated tolerance code. I would suggest that you not set the tolerance below .001" to start with because that will now give a much better finish than before. You can download it at http://www.grzsoftware.com/files/MeshCAM2-6887.exe . Let me know what you think and what the calculation times end up being for an equivalent quality (not equivalent tolerance) toolpath.
No other bugs have been addressed. I will being working through some of them now so I can get this ready for a public release. I may be contacting some of you who’ve made bug reports for more information now that I have time to address them before the next release.
Comments
9 Responses to “New Test Release”
Runs great! Thanks for the fix. Is the retract bug on you list of known bugs?
Other than the fact that they’re still not-optimal when you define a max surface angle, no. Send me whatever supporting data you can and I’ll see what I can do.
-Robert
Just ran my test .stl file with the new version 6887 using .001 tolerances and compared it to version 6868 using .001 tolerance. Calculation times were 3 times faster with the newest version, very nice. What changed in the Roughing? Using all the same parameters the cut paths viewed in Cutviewer for the roughing pass are completely different. They look terrible.
Here are the details on the retract bug.
Screen shot proving all the information needed.
http://www.batbuilds.com/~adam/retract_bug.JPG
My part file.
http://www.batbuilds.com/~adam/Rotozip-bottom-cap.stl
Found a new bug. This is a dumb user bug.
If you have the “Accept Toolpath?” box open, and then “Generate Toolpath”, hit ok, when the second “Accept Toolpath?” box comes up MeshCAM will crash.
Hope these help. If you need any more details, just let me know.
-Adam
Jay-
The roughing quality is related to the base tolerance the quality setting. If you increase the tolerance it will drop the quality of the roughing. Given that I’m now encouraging larger tolerance values I just bumped the internal minimum roughing quality for the next release. I don’t see any difference in quality between 6868 and 6887 at the same tolerance setting though. Just to make sure that there were no typos, you used the same .001″ tolerance for both your 6868 and 6887 tests?
Adam-
Thanks- I’ll give that a look.
-Robert
Yes, I used the same tolerance values for both versions. The same tool, the same steps, same everything. It’s hard to explain how different the two tool paths are in the roughing phase, but its drastic. The finish, Waterline and Cut along X, seems the same as far as tool path quality.
Jay,
Your results are the opposite of mine. 87 produced a more rational rough path and a far better Y finish even with the 87 tolerance set at .025mm vs the 68 set at .0025mm. 250 seconds vs 400 seconds. Both with roughing tolerance set at 5. All observations of tool paths just from MC screen.
Jeff
I would be glad to send you the .nc files of a before and after, so you can see what I’m talking about. I just ran a roughing pass only and it is easy to see the really blocky and odd tool paths. Now like I said before toolpath calculation is three times faster, which is great, most of my .stl files are over 300 megs.
Jay,
I don’t doubt your tests but something very strange is going on. I can’t look at your .nc files, no cut viewer program here. I did post two screen shots on my site of identical runs (as described in message 7)
http://users.gmavt.net/jdemand/robert/6868.png
http://users.gmavt.net/jdemand/robert/6887.png
Weird roughing and model clipping shown on 6868
I’m running very small tools, 1.6mm ball and a .2mm 16° taper. There was a bug with radically different tool sizes a couple of releases ago, maybe it still is alive