the new path workflow, my first impresions
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Re: the new path workflow, my first impresions
Good Morning,
thx, - double click I did not try, only moving the pathes in the object tree.
thx, - double click I did not try, only moving the pathes in the object tree.
Gruß Herbert
Re: the new path workflow, my first impresions
Well, I want to be able to make the part in a single operation (using a thin enough endmill).mlampert wrote:Not sure I understand, is your point that currently you need to manually create the profiles for all holes and contour and you want that functionality combined?nahshon wrote:2. Processing the outline of a piece is now easy, but usually pieces also have holes (and holes may have complex shapes).
I would like to have an option to cut all the holes of a part first and then the outline - in a single operation. (reverse the direction for the holes).
The direction for the holes would be the reverse of the outline direction (Outline=CCW,Out ==> Holes=CW,In).
Use same depth and step-down.
Holes should be milled before the outline.
Trying to select each hole separately is a pain.
- Attachments
-
- 80mm-fan-cover-hexagons.fcstd
- (426.75 KiB) Downloaded 136 times
- sliptonic
- Veteran
- Posts: 3457
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
- Location: Columbia, Missouri
- Contact:
Re: the new path workflow, my first impresions
For parts like this, we need better selection tools. Something like a 'find inside holes' to automatically select all. Or the ability to select one and 'find similar'.nahshon wrote: Trying to select each hole separately is a pain.
A hack-y workaround that I've used on a similar part was to make the holes into shallow pockets with a boolean or other means. Then selecting the bottom faces for profiling but setting the full depth of cut
Re: the new path workflow, my first impresions
Processing holes was not too difficult. This is implemented only for libarea (also, libarea selected as default).
OCC native has far too many bugs. It failed for the Ellipses that I used in my test case and also in some other examples.
There is a bug with the selection Direction and Side which reset each time that I double click on the path object to open the editing panel. I know it is caused by getFields which is called before setFields had updated the UI but I do not know how to fix it.
Need to verify that face,Wires[1:] always get the wires for the holes (or an empty list if the face has no holes).
To use, select the top (horizontal) face and create a path from the face, then change Process Hole to true.
Diff file attached.
OCC native has far too many bugs. It failed for the Ellipses that I used in my test case and also in some other examples.
There is a bug with the selection Direction and Side which reset each time that I double click on the path object to open the editing panel. I know it is caused by getFields which is called before setFields had updated the UI but I do not know how to fix it.
Need to verify that face,Wires[1:] always get the wires for the holes (or an empty list if the face has no holes).
To use, select the top (horizontal) face and create a path from the face, then change Process Hole to true.
Diff file attached.
- Attachments
-
- ProcessHoles.diff.txt
- (6.91 KiB) Downloaded 46 times
- sliptonic
- Veteran
- Posts: 3457
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
- Location: Columbia, Missouri
- Contact:
Re: the new path workflow, my first impresions
I think I'm going to remove the OCC option entirely. I haven't found a case where OCC is better than libarea.nahshon wrote:Processing holes was not too difficult. This is implemented only for libarea (also, libarea selected as default).
OCC native has far too many bugs. It failed for the Ellipses that I used in my test case and also in some other examples.
fixed. This happens because the setfields populates one field, which causes an update signal, which causes getfields to process before the other fields have been set up in setfields. The solution is to temporarily disable the signal.There is a bug with the selection Direction and Side which reset each time that I double click on the path object to open the editing panel. I know it is caused by getFields which is called before setFields had updated the UI but I do not know how to fix it.
Nice improvement. Thanks nahshon! I've sent pull request with your diff and the fix for direction/side.
Diff file attached.
- sliptonic
- Veteran
- Posts: 3457
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
- Location: Columbia, Missouri
- Contact:
Re: the new path workflow, my first impresions
I wonder now whether we should add the option to suppress the outside profile.
Re: the new path workflow, my first impresions
I could imagine something more general. Perhaps it would be better to have something like a dressup, i.e. a kind of general modificator to delete or modify an arbitrary part of the path. With this special object I could well imagine, that one of the pockets should be treated differently (other tool, other depth, ...).
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Re: the new path workflow, my first impresions
Hi,
after a few more hours of playing around ("testing" is a to big word for what i have time for... ) with the new workflow i becomme a little bit familiar with it.
First: some things i called as "awkward" in entry post i figured out to handle the new workflow that it works nearly as before.
The foult i made wars: I selct first the faces (of more than one object) and than the the button "profile based on face" what returns a emthy dialog, -and i sugest that it doesn't work.
It works if i first click on "profile based on face" and than ad the faces, - but only one by one, Selecting more then one doesn't work.
OK. it works, but in my mind is: "selecting the faces than click the button" the more sugestiv way - and still there is the (not very big) Problem that each part is to mill with the same tool.
What i'm not can figure out: where is the button "contur path for base object" for?
For the (from me) missing option to save a machine with it's tooltable i fond this workaround:
I save a FreeCAD (.fscd) file with an cube in size of the table of my machine, placed with the top on Z0 (to simalate the machine table) and a tooltable. This file i use as template for each milling job.
after a few more hours of playing around ("testing" is a to big word for what i have time for... ) with the new workflow i becomme a little bit familiar with it.
First: some things i called as "awkward" in entry post i figured out to handle the new workflow that it works nearly as before.
The foult i made wars: I selct first the faces (of more than one object) and than the the button "profile based on face" what returns a emthy dialog, -and i sugest that it doesn't work.
It works if i first click on "profile based on face" and than ad the faces, - but only one by one, Selecting more then one doesn't work.
OK. it works, but in my mind is: "selecting the faces than click the button" the more sugestiv way - and still there is the (not very big) Problem that each part is to mill with the same tool.
What i'm not can figure out: where is the button "contur path for base object" for?
For the (from me) missing option to save a machine with it's tooltable i fond this workaround:
I save a FreeCAD (.fscd) file with an cube in size of the table of my machine, placed with the top on Z0 (to simalate the machine table) and a tooltable. This file i use as template for each milling job.
Gruß Herbert
- sliptonic
- Veteran
- Posts: 3457
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
- Location: Columbia, Missouri
- Contact:
Re: the new path workflow, my first impresions
I appreciate the testing and the feedback. I know things are rough but we'll get thereherbk wrote:Hi,
after a few more hours of playing around ("testing" is a to big word for what i have time for... )
I'm trying to avoid having just one way of doing this. I want the GUI to work correctly regardless of which way you prefer to work. Some users prefer to first create the operation, then select the geometry. Others work like you by selecting geometry first, then creating an operation for that selection. In my opinion, both should work. I think you're seeing a bug with the selection processing. I'll look at it.I selct first the faces (of more than one object) and than the the button "profile based on face" what returns a emthy dialog, -and i sugest that it doesn't work.
It works if i first click on "profile based on face" and than ad the faces, - but only one by one, Selecting more then one doesn't work.
OK. it works, but in my mind is: "selecting the faces than click the button" the more sugestiv way - and still there is the (not very big) Problem that each part is to mill with the same tool.
I think that common and simple operations should be possible with a minimum of clicks. Contour is a special case of profile. It doesn't allow you to select geometry because it always does a profile of the full part perimeter. If you have a part like this:What i'm not can figure out: where is the button "contur path for base object" for?
Then there's no face or combination of edges for the user to select for an outside profile. But this is a very common operation where you need to cut the part away from the surrounding stock. The contour operation will automatically work on a 2D projection of the part and use the outside perimeter. It still has some bugs and there are cases where it doesn't work yet but it's improving quickly.
[/quote]For the (from me) missing option to save a machine with it's tooltable i fond this workaround:
I save a FreeCAD (.fscd) file with an cube in size of the table of my machine, placed with the top on Z0 (to simalate the machine table) and a tooltable. This file i use as template for each milling job.
Good work-around. I don't want there to be a 1:1 relationship between machines and tooltables. I've seen cases where shops have standard pallets of tools for different kinds of jobs. It's the same post processor in every case, but different collections of tools depending on if they're running cabinets or toys that day.
The tool handling needs lots of work but that's the direction I'm going in. Hopefully we can make it very simple and intuitive for hobby users but still powerful enough for real shops with big machines and toolchangers.
Re: the new path workflow, my first impresions
Hi Sliptonic,
Thx for the explanation of the "contur path for base object" funtion. It seams i have to ad a aditinal part to my "testfile"...
As long as we can produce neutral gcode with setting the path to "on", the professional use is covered.
It's the only thing I can contribute... i'm not a programmer and my feedback should be a imagination from the "non programmers" view.I appreciate the testing and the feedback
my mind to.In my opinion, both should work
Thx for the explanation of the "contur path for base object" funtion. It seams i have to ad a aditinal part to my "testfile"...
Why not? In my mind it's not so far away...Hopefully we can make it very simple and intuitive for hobby users but still powerful enough for real shops with big machines and toolchangers.
All the companies I work with, need to get a neutral gcode, because the tool tables are part of the software which runs on the machine.I've seen cases where shops have standard pallets of tools for different kinds of jobs
As long as we can produce neutral gcode with setting the path to "on", the professional use is covered.
Gruß Herbert