dressup minor issues

Here's the place for discussion related to CAM/CNC and the development of the Path module.
chrisb
Posts: 19044
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: dressup minor issues

Postby chrisb » Wed Apr 04, 2018 8:52 pm

polymer wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:55 pm
The Tool-Library definitely needs two extra options: ramp angle and min. diameter for helical ramping.
These options should be added as soon as someone starts coding. We have already tool parameters for future use. The data structure of the tool library is simple enough to add them as they are needed.
herbk
Posts: 1545
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 3:45 pm
Location: Windsbach, Bavarya (Germany)

Re: dressup minor issues

Postby herbk » Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:52 am

polymer wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:55 pm
The Tool-Library definitely needs two extra options: ramp angle and min. diameter for helical ramping.

Both depends from the geometry of the tool.
I suggested some time ago at an other Thread: Ramp entry should be the standard at each path using a regular (square) shaped endmill, because also a endmilli with a cutting center gets a longer livetime if a ramp entry is used
Ramp angle depends on the tool, but helical ramping also depends on the workpeace (how much space for the helix?) to. So in my mind helical ramping should be placed in a dressup, not at the tool description.

But like chrisb said: we have a lott of (not used atm) parameters in the tooltable. Its confusing if asked for things with no effect, so keep the tooltable as it is, until a new function is added.
Gruß Herbert
polymer
Posts: 228
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:49 am

Re: dressup minor issues

Postby polymer » Thu Apr 05, 2018 10:38 am

herbk wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:52 am
polymer wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:55 pm
The Tool-Library definitely needs two extra options: ramp angle and min. diameter for helical ramping.

Both depends from the geometry of the tool.
I suggested some time ago at an other Thread: Ramp entry should be the standard at each path using a regular (square) shaped endmill, because also a endmilli with a cutting center gets a longer livetime if a ramp entry is used
Ramp angle depends on the tool, but helical ramping also depends on the workpeace (how much space for the helix?) to. So in my mind helical ramping should be placed in a dressup, not at the tool description.

But like chrisb said: we have a lott of (not used atm) parameters in the tooltable. Its confusing if asked for things with no effect, so keep the tooltable as it is, until a new function is added.
Maybe in the future when Path can check if an operation is possible or not. (for example: cornerratius<tooldiameter, space for helical entry ...)
Than for some tool-parameter it would make more sense if they were placed in the tool-library.
roivai
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:29 pm
Location: Oulu, Finland

Re: dressup minor issues

Postby roivai » Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:55 pm

JoshM wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:46 pm
I just ran an aluminum job and used Ramp dress-up on it. One thing that I noticed that surprised me was that the Ramp-Angle is specified relative to the Tool, not the Job, and so if I want to specify a Steep Ramp, I approach 0-Deg, and for a Shallow Ramp, I approach 90-Deg. This seems counter-intuitive to me.
The notation of the ramp angle has come from my head with no kind of thought how it should be defined.. So it definitely should be changed as the agreement seems to be that 90 deg should mean straight down. Maybe not before 0.17 release though?

Pekka
chrisb
Posts: 19044
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: dressup minor issues

Postby chrisb » Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:43 pm

roivai wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:55 pm
The notation of the ramp angle has come from my head with no kind of thought how it should be defined.. So it definitely should be changed as the agreement seems to be that 90 deg should mean straight down. Maybe not before 0.17 release though?
I am intrigued to say you are right, but on the other hand will 0.17 be the stable release for a very long time, making all models partly invalid for later versions, which use the 90-x angle. Now we are still in a prerelease where models are accepted to be invalidated.
mlampert
Posts: 1347
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:28 pm

Re: dressup minor issues

Postby mlampert » Thu Apr 05, 2018 6:41 pm

chrisb wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 5:43 pm
roivai wrote:
Thu Apr 05, 2018 4:55 pm
The notation of the ramp angle has come from my head with no kind of thought how it should be defined.. So it definitely should be changed as the agreement seems to be that 90 deg should mean straight down. Maybe not before 0.17 release though?
I am intrigued to say you are right, but on the other hand will 0.17 be the stable release for a very long time, making all models partly invalid for later versions, which use the 90-x angle. Now we are still in a prerelease where models are accepted to be invalidated.
+1, it's now or never
roivai
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:29 pm
Location: Oulu, Finland

Re: dressup minor issues

Postby roivai » Thu Apr 05, 2018 7:56 pm

OK, I'll try to make a pull request during next weekend.
roivai
Posts: 117
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:29 pm
Location: Oulu, Finland

Re: dressup minor issues

Postby roivai » Sat Apr 07, 2018 3:07 pm

Hmm, seems that I'm late for this party.. Here's the commit, but I suppose the release has been done already?
https://github.com/pekkaroi/FreeCAD/com ... 545ac486aa
chrisb
Posts: 19044
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: dressup minor issues

Postby chrisb » Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:30 am

Yes it's released, but I guess there will be bugfix-releases before 0.18 is ready.
chrisb
Posts: 19044
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: dressup minor issues

Postby chrisb » Sun Apr 08, 2018 4:30 am

Oh, and thanks for the fix.