RatonLaveur wrote: ↑
Thu Sep 05, 2019 1:00 pm
Hello to all,
I've been testing the use of adaptive milling with our laser (how fun!) and have hit a few road-bumps regarding specifically the accuracy of the adaptive.
Considering a tool of 0.1 mm diameter, we have found some "anomalous" behavior of adaptive that actually shows during the machining.
The problem occurs on both my machine
OS: Windows 7
Word size of OS: 64-bit
Word size of FreeCAD: 64-bit
Version: 0.18.16093 (Git)
Build type: Release
Python version: 2.7.14
Qt version: 4.8.7
Coin version: 4.0.0a
OCC version: 7.2.0
Locale: French/Switzerland (fr_CH)
and that of a colleague who uses the most up to date Py3.6/Qt5 v.0.18.3 windows x64 on the freecad frontpage.
Attached you'll find a test model Adaptive_Milling_Test.FCStd where i've removed the adaptive path for size considerations.
You'll find an overview of the test here 2019-09-05_14h45_40.png
Typical issues we encounter:
1. The general density of the adaptive path is not uniform, as evidenced by the square area and few denser/less dense areas in the branch progression 2019-09-05_13h56_37.png
2. The result can vary from one recompute to the other, but we see some artifacts that are generally more visible after the transition from generation (blue path) to g-code (green path). Hereafter two recomputes show both the presence and the absence of a defect. But random irregularities are always there.2019-09-05_13h54_15.png2019-09-05_13h54_55.png
To note: both our computers use the most accurate (0.001 mm) parameters in the Edit-Parameters-Path tab.
The path defects we mention are not merely artifacts of display, as our laser milling experiments actually shows them on the surface.
Anyone think they have an explanation? or help to offer ?
Thanks a lot!