Helix machining for circular holes
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Helix machining for circular holes
I updated my code for machining circular holes with helicular paths (see also the old discussion). I made a pull request for this, see https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/417.
Compared to earlier versions I removed the feature to automatically detect "counterbore" holes. Currently it seems that FreeCAD does not offer sufficient topological information (to the Python layer, at least) to be able to this fast enough for parts with lots of faces. So a user just has to select all cylinders of a more complex hole manually. This should not be to problematic, IMHO.
What do you think?
Here is a screenshot of the current GUI taskpanel and the resulting paths:
Compared to earlier versions I removed the feature to automatically detect "counterbore" holes. Currently it seems that FreeCAD does not offer sufficient topological information (to the Python layer, at least) to be able to this fast enough for parts with lots of faces. So a user just has to select all cylinders of a more complex hole manually. This should not be to problematic, IMHO.
What do you think?
Here is a screenshot of the current GUI taskpanel and the resulting paths:
Re: Helix machining for circular holes
And here is the resulting path simulated with camotics:
- sliptonic
- Veteran
- Posts: 3459
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
- Location: Columbia, Missouri
- Contact:
Re: Helix machining for circular holes
Hey lorenz,
Thanks for the PR. I'll take a look tonight and see how this looks. We might want to integrate this more directly as a general operation or include it with drilling. Give us some time to check it out.
Thanks.
Thanks for the PR. I'll take a look tonight and see how this looks. We might want to integrate this more directly as a general operation or include it with drilling. Give us some time to check it out.
Thanks.
Re: Helix machining for circular holes
If you decide to integrate it somewhere, please, do not call it drilling, that is a completely different operation.
Re: Helix machining for circular holes
I agree that the resulting g-code is entirely different- but if I view the operation from a workflow and end result perspective (as a user) they have more in common than not. You would select (be able to select) the same features of a part, and you expect the same result, a round hole.lorenz wrote:If you decide to integrate it somewhere, please, do not call it drilling, that is a completely different operation.
I'm not suggesting to do this under the hood, it should probably be a selectable option. Not trying to diminish the feature (I love it), just a thought to keep the UI uncluttered.
- sliptonic
- Veteran
- Posts: 3459
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
- Location: Columbia, Missouri
- Contact:
Re: Helix machining for circular holes
That's kind of what I was thinking about too. After yorik introduced the Arch Panels I started thinking about the difficulty in setting up a drilling operation where the target object might have dozens or hundreds of holes. We'll need selection tools that filter by diameter at the very least. We might need commands to sort the selection like a traveling salesman.
These tools have a lot in common with your helical hole.
There might be other kinds of operations that have similarities as well.
Boring for example looks a lot like drilling but has some additional options.
Threading?
Chamfering?
I, too, really like what you've done with this but I want to make sure we end up with a consistent and intuitive UI.
These tools have a lot in common with your helical hole.
There might be other kinds of operations that have similarities as well.
Boring for example looks a lot like drilling but has some additional options.
Threading?
Chamfering?
I, too, really like what you've done with this but I want to make sure we end up with a consistent and intuitive UI.
Re: Helix machining for circular holes
+1lorenz wrote:please, do not call it drilling, that is a completely different operation.
Need help? Feel free to ask, but please read the guidelines first
Re: Helix machining for circular holes
lorenz wrote:If you decide to integrate it somewhere, please, do not call it drilling, that is a completely different operation.
I agree with lorenz here. I'm an engineer not a machinist. But the machinists I've worked with have taught me to expect different results from "milling" than "drilling". "Drilling" is a straight plunge with the "drill: , maybe pecking cycles , this is a not precise operation. The machinists have taught me to design for a larger diameter than the tool if tolerance is important. Diameter 0.128" round hole, "circ interp" an 0.125" endmill =+/- 0.001" tolerance.mlampert wrote:I agree that the resulting g-code is entirely different- but if I view the operation from a workflow and end result perspective (as a user) they have more in common than not. You would select (be able to select) the same features of a part, and you expect the same result, a round hole.
"fight the good fight"
Re: Helix machining for circular holes
Looks very nice; cannot wait to test drive this "BORING Operation/Tool".lorenz wrote:I updated my code for machining circular holes with helicular paths (see also the old discussion). I made a pull request for this, see https://github.com/FreeCAD/FreeCAD/pull/417. ... What do you think?
- sliptonic
- Veteran
- Posts: 3459
- Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
- Location: Columbia, Missouri
- Contact:
Re: Helix machining for circular holes
I did get this working and it produces very nice paths! I sent you a pm about specific implementation issues.
When clearing a circular hole, it does a helical descent, then rapids out, moves over the step width and repeats with progressively larger helices.
I'm curious if users would also like to see the alternative strategy where it spirals down a step, then spirals out to the full width, rapids back and repeats.
Is there ever an advantage of one over the other?
When clearing a circular hole, it does a helical descent, then rapids out, moves over the step width and repeats with progressively larger helices.
I'm curious if users would also like to see the alternative strategy where it spirals down a step, then spirals out to the full width, rapids back and repeats.
Is there ever an advantage of one over the other?