dressup minor issues

Here's the place for discussion related to CAM/CNC and the development of the Path module.
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53922
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: dressup minor issues

Post by chrisb »

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.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
herbk
Veteran
Posts: 2657
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2014 3:45 pm
Location: Windsbach, Bavarya (Germany)

Re: dressup minor issues

Post by herbk »

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: 278
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2014 8:49 am

Re: dressup minor issues

Post by polymer »

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

Post by roivai »

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
Veteran
Posts: 53922
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: dressup minor issues

Post by chrisb »

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.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
mlampert
Veteran
Posts: 1772
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 9:28 pm

Re: dressup minor issues

Post by mlampert »

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

Post by roivai »

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

Post by roivai »

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
Veteran
Posts: 53922
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: dressup minor issues

Post by chrisb »

Yes it's released, but I guess there will be bugfix-releases before 0.18 is ready.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
chrisb
Veteran
Posts: 53922
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:14 am

Re: dressup minor issues

Post by chrisb »

Oh, and thanks for the fix.
A Sketcher Lecture with in-depth information is available in English, auf Deutsch, en français, en español.
Post Reply