Like Subject say, i noticed a strange behavior of the 3D Surface Op, using the Patern option ZigZag.
If i work with an Step Over of 100 or 50 i get the expected path.
If i change the Step over to something else, the path looks like this:
The amount of the jumps differs, depending the value of the Step Over.
If i select the flat area above of the "bumps" to, i get a path without any jump, no matter of the value for the Step Over.
If i deselect Boundary Enforcement, i get also a Path without jumps (but the path dosn't fit to my router then...).
Made with:
OS: openSUSE Tumbleweed (KDE//usr/share/xsessions/plasma5)
Word size of FreeCAD: 64-bit
Version: 0.20.24612 (Git) AppImage
Build type: Release
Branch: master
Hash: f525904c1be10a0f55aa3502151c2c55e5054259
Python version: 3.9.2
Qt version: 5.12.9
Coin version: 4.0.0
OCC version: 7.5.1
Locale: German/Germany (de_DE)
The File is to big to attach it, if someone wants to have it, i'l make smaller example (which hopefully shows the same behavior... )
Strange behavior of 3D Surface Op
Forum rules
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Be nice to others! Respect the FreeCAD code of conduct!
Strange behavior of 3D Surface Op
Gruß Herbert
Re: Strange behavior of 3D Surface Op
Afternoon.
No problem. I created a similar file. I was able to reproduce the bug. The bug appears to be related to the `Optimize Step Over Transitions` feature. Also, I notice an oddity - the paths are without error when the Step Over is a multiple of 25%. You mentioned things are okay at 50 and 100 percent. My tests show 25 and 75 percent Step Over are okay as well. We likely need to file a Mantis ticket for this.
My tests use a 3mm ball endmill and ZigZag cut pattern with single-pass layer mode.
Source file attached for reference.
Russell
OS: Windows 10 Version 2009
Word size of OS: 64-bit
Word size of FreeCAD: 64-bit
Version: 0.19.24267 (Git)
Build type: Release
Branch: master
Hash: b2ca86d8d72b636011a73394bf9bcdedb3b109b7
Python version: 3.8.6+
Qt version: 5.15.1
Coin version: 4.0.1
OCC version: 7.5.0
Locale: English/United States (en_US)
No problem. I created a similar file. I was able to reproduce the bug. The bug appears to be related to the `Optimize Step Over Transitions` feature. Also, I notice an oddity - the paths are without error when the Step Over is a multiple of 25%. You mentioned things are okay at 50 and 100 percent. My tests show 25 and 75 percent Step Over are okay as well. We likely need to file a Mantis ticket for this.
My tests use a 3mm ball endmill and ZigZag cut pattern with single-pass layer mode.
Source file attached for reference.
Russell
OS: Windows 10 Version 2009
Word size of OS: 64-bit
Word size of FreeCAD: 64-bit
Version: 0.19.24267 (Git)
Build type: Release
Branch: master
Hash: b2ca86d8d72b636011a73394bf9bcdedb3b109b7
Python version: 3.8.6+
Qt version: 5.15.1
Coin version: 4.0.1
OCC version: 7.5.0
Locale: English/United States (en_US)
- Attachments
-
- battery_case.FCStd
- Source file
- (126.17 KiB) Downloaded 9 times
-
- ZigZag, 25% Step Over, 0.5 mm Sample Interval, and Optimize StepOver Transitions set to True
- Snip macro screenshot-798314.png (307.88 KiB) Viewed 351 times
-
- ZigZag, 20% Step Over, 0.5 mm Sample Interval, and Optimize StepOver Transitions set to True
- Snip macro screenshot-403284.png (352.14 KiB) Viewed 351 times