Hi, It seems 'optimize Stepover Transitions' isn't working correctly in 3d Surface. With it enabled, everything above StartDepth-(1xStepdown) is ignored.
Gene, Thank you for confirming. Without it enabled, the tool doesn't start at uncut material, rather with every layer it starts in the middle at the top in my example and goes over already cut material which considerably increases milling time.
Hi everyone, just wondering if this bug could be fixed sometime soon; it's been over a year since I submitted the bug report. With out this working properly, the 3d Surface functionality is compromised. Currently with 'Optimize Stepover Transitions' enabled, the work isn't cut correctly - the section above the first stepdown is ignored. With 'Optimize stepover Transitions' disabled, for each pass the tool goes over already cut surfaces which drastically increases cutting time.
I've looked at the code several times myself, but fail to see what the problem could be. Would be fantastic if this could be fixed!
It appears that the first step down mast be excluded of the optimization.
replace the following lines form file /Path/Op/Surface.py
line 1689 and 1710 ( At least in my file )
if optLinTrans is True:
with
if optLinTrans is True and layDep != (obj.OpStartDepth.Value - obj.StepDown.Value):
line 1837 ( At least in my file )
if obj.OptimizeStepOverTransitions:
with
if obj.OptimizeStepOverTransitions and p2.z != (obj.OpStartDepth.Value - obj.StepDown.Value):
That looks to be working for your file above.
Attachments
Screenshot from 2024-01-15 22-22-02.png (74.48 KiB) Viewed 3167 times
Last edited by Dimitrios2 on Mon Jan 15, 2024 8:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
@Dimitrios2 Thank you so much for looking at this. I followed your instructions and with the example file achieve the same results as you did. I'll test tomorrow with more files. Thanks again!
@Dimitrios2 Thank you for showing that, that path looks far more reasonable.
As I understand it, The Bounding Box options mean Should the operation be limited by the stock object or by the bounding box of the base object. If I make the size of the stock exactly the same size as the bounding box, surely the resulting path should be the same? When The 'Bounding Box' option is set to 'Stock' there's a lot of jumping around to safe height on this example.
I think in the past, I automatically chose 'Stock' for this option because otherwise, larger models would never finish calculating, even if left overnight, whereas when set to 'Stock' the calculation would take around 10 minutes. Has this now been fixed?