3D surface simulation accuracy

[mn00n]

The simulation of this 3D surface shows unexpected Z motion in both '0' and '180' directions, irrespective of speed/accuracy settings. It appears the g-code is correct, although haven't tried an air cut on the mill yet. As a general rule is it better to rely on the wireframe representation of an operation than the simulation animation?

OS: Windows 10 (10.0)
Word size of OS: 64-bit
Word size of FreeCAD: 64-bit
Version: 0.19.23074 (Git)
Build type: Release
Branch: master
Hash: 74b866ed3022fd1452c534dae31a721bcc668f2f
Python version: 3.8.6
Qt version: 5.12.5
Coin version: 4.0.0
OCC version: 7.4.0
Locale: English/Canada (en_CA)

[chrisb]

As a general rule is it better to rely on the wireframe representation of an operation than the simulation animation?

Definitely!

[Russ4262]

May I suggest NC Viewer or Camotics. These two are good quality and have been around a while. I use an external simulator to verify paths with rotation (4th-axis).

Russell

[mn00n]

Both seem great tools, thank you. You've probably deduced I'm on a steep learning curve (but making rapid progress).

[geant]

...3D surface shows unexpected Z motion in both '0' and '180' directions, irrespective of speed/accuracy settings.

Can you post your file?
Possibly: For better simulation and milling results, try reducing the mill dia. and/or step-over.

[mn00n]

File attached. It appears to go seriously awry when step-over is >50.

[mn00n]

Mission accomplished...the g-code was correct despite the simulation suggesting otherwise. NC Viewer was a good sanity check tip.

[Russ4262]

Nice!

Thanks for sharing.

Russell

[Kunda1]

Off topic but related, updating the path simulator could be a potential project to put a bounty on...?