PATH: TAG Processing and Implementation

Here's the place for discussion related to CAM/CNC and the development of the Path module.
User avatar
bill
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:25 pm

PATH: TAG Processing and Implementation

Postby bill » Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:35 pm

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
tagvisual.png (23.11 KiB) Viewed 648 times
Exhibit B: Barely a TAG generated in final cut
toolcompqwst.jpg
toolcompqwst.jpg (934.86 KiB) Viewed 648 times
mlampert
Posts: 1570
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:28 pm

Re: PATH: TAG Processing and Implementation

Postby mlampert » Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:16 am

User avatar
bill
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:25 pm

Re: PATH: TAG Processing and Implementation

Postby bill » Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:55 pm

mlampert wrote:
Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:16 am
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!
User avatar
sliptonic
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Oct 25, 2011 10:46 pm
Location: Columbia, Missouri
Contact:

Re: PATH: TAG Processing and Implementation

Postby sliptonic » Mon Feb 05, 2018 8:04 pm

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?
User avatar
bill
Posts: 376
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:25 pm

Re: PATH: TAG Processing and Implementation

Postby bill » Mon Feb 05, 2018 9:13 pm

This implies a 2mm TAG (minimally I would hope)
TagWidth.png
TagWidth.png (13.42 KiB) Viewed 419 times

This is the path that lead you to believe it is proportionally substantial (visually):
2mmTA.png
2mmTA.png (8.93 KiB) Viewed 419 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.