New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

V-bit is simulated wrong? #173

Closed
vilemduha opened this Issue Jan 4, 2016 · 3 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@vilemduha
Copy link

vilemduha commented Jan 4, 2016

Hello,
here I compare results of V - carving with 90 degree V-bit in CAMotics and in Blender CAM. the 90 degree cutter was defined in CAMotics as width = 2*length.

It's quite obvious there is something wrong, but I am not sure what, seems like the V-bit angle is not perfectly correct, or the simulation happens somehow different from what I imagine. It's visible on the corners, where the lines are not straight.
In blenderCAM, the simulation is done by sampling a bitmap, so it has precision issues, but kind of works reliably.
The path comes from blenderCAM medial axis strategy, but I tested F-engrave and it was the same...

I am the main developer of Blender CAM by the way. - CAMotics is a great tool! Thank you for developing it.

image

image

@jcoffland

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

jcoffland commented Jan 4, 2016

I noticed something similar recently. I'm working on fixing it. This problem occurs with slanting moves and conical bits.

Could you paste your GCode here or compare with the slant_test example so we have a common test case? slant_test might be better since it's a very small tests for this particular issue.

@vilemduha

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

vilemduha commented Jan 4, 2016

adding my code - BlenderCAM can only export gcode, so there's no way to compare for real...
testvcarve.zip

here is slant_test run here with 90 degrees cutter:
image

it clearly shows the issue, cutter shape goes deep into material, where material should be removed but wasn't.

@jcoffland

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

jcoffland commented Jan 5, 2016

I think I may have already fixed this in the latest code. I've been working on a few different things so I'll have to take a closer look. Thanks for the input.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment