PATH: TAG Processing and Implementation

[bill]

Are tool diameters/radius observed and implemented when tags are inserted into the Path?

Exhibit A: Everything looks great; proportionally based on size of part/scale

tagvisual.png (23.11 KiB) Viewed 647 times

Exhibit B: Barely a TAG generated in final cut

toolcompqwst.jpg (934.86 KiB) Viewed 647 times

[mlampert]

https://youtu.be/JZ4prlR6sps?t=331

[bill]

https://youtu.be/JZ4prlR6sps?t=331

Yeah, I am aware of this video. But, still see this as an issue.

Just trying to not use square TAGs because of the PLUNGING/STEPDOWN issue.

Think top (instead of bottom of TAG) should be used for RADIUSed (if thats a term) TAGs for Safety sake!

[sliptonic]

I don't think I understand the issue you're highlighting. The green path obviously represents the location of the tool and not the profile of the tag. So it looks like the tags are correctly formed for the tool you're using.

What are you expecting to see?

[bill]

This implies a 2mm TAG (minimally I would hope)

TagWidth.png (13.42 KiB) Viewed 418 times

This is the path that lead you to believe it is proportionally substantial (visually):

2mmTA.png (8.93 KiB) Viewed 418 times

TAGGING is a safety implementation/feature. For that reason alone, WIDTH should reflect a MINIMUM, not the peaked tab shown above in the machined aluminium due to the TOOL diameter (4.22 - 6.2 = Ah, no flat as implied by all other visual tools) . The WIDTH looks to be defined at the base; 8.3mm - ToolDiameter (In this case was 6.2mm) = 2mm. I find this slightly misleading from a satety POV.

And yes, I know I could make the TAGs wider and this would not be an issue; I would rather not have someone (who uses TAGs infrequently) learn that lesson the hard way.