rough recovery with it 13.00

[ziotoy]

Hello everyone, I would like a dlucidation on the resumption function of gushing in it.
in s-svuota it is possible to activate the calculation of the recovery by "with rough".
activating this function is therefore activated "min.spess.grezzo"...here,what is the optimal value to insert and what is it referred to? ?
I usually insert as value 0.5 or maximum 1 but I always get a path that while being a recovery, therefore without more removal of the "mollica", which goes back to areas already worked by the previous tool therefore with a huge time spent.
enlighten me, please, thank you.
Say hi.

 

[Dylan]

compra worknc. ;-)

ciao
dilate

 

[monster]

....and daje spend two money...:finger:

 

[cimaguy]

...including powermill

Hi.

ps. honor and glory at the old summit it

 

[ziotoy]

Grazie... Sesauritis veramente... ops seurienti!!: -)

 

[monster]

I can tell you what I remember... but I doubt

Now it's been as an environment for that, the friends of the hole are joking in the most popular competitive paths. . .

 

[ziotoy]

... I was joking too... see face...
Say hi.

p.s. cmq if you give me that information I gladly accept also old reminescences.

 

[Nettuno79]

Hello,
Usually the minimum raw thickness should at least be equal to the supermetal used in the current processing more 'qualcosin'.
this little something should be the calculation tolerance usually multiplied by two .
example : 1 mm overmetal and work tolerance 0.1 mm / minimum raw thickness at least 1.2 mm . This way the system will not go back to some areas where little stuff remained.
so he reasons ridge but should be the same for it.

ciauz

 

[Dylan]

Hi.

Sorry irony. .

The problem is that not even v.9 of peaks offer exciting results. . .
I'll explain.

the minimum residual rough parameter (in and ) "works" in the walls that tend to the vertical.

If you go to sgross 3d silhouettes with gradients from 0 to 45° we say the parameter is useless.
the recovery of roughness will go in an insolent and annoying way to remove the levels left by the previous tool on the whole figure. instead of limiting to those areas where the previous tool, for reasons of size, could not empty. Here.
this worknc does it great. with the only limitation of having to do the resumption of roughing with the same z step of the main roughing. the difference is that in peaks 'by setting the "minimum rough thickness" you avoid some past (but not all those that do not serve anything that go to identify the overmetal of the tool prec on the surf where the parameter does not affect...) while with worknc the rip of sgros goes to risgrossare where you would expect or where the main uternsilone failed to enter.

details for the most... dries for camouflage...
dylan

 

[cimaguy]

dylan

according to me the parameter "min.spessore grezzo" is born with the intent
to exclude those low slope areas (see a wide surface
curvature), where it is not necessary to remove the step of material left by the mill
previous.
if I make a re-grossing of a pocket(with the same parameters
with a smaller tool, obtain
only on the corners.
Then yes, the parameter, according to me, doesn't need much.

 

[ziotoy]

Hello,
Usually the minimum raw thickness should at least be equal to the supermetal used in the current processing more 'qualcosin'.
this little something should be the calculation tolerance usually multiplied by two .
example : 1 mm overmetal and work tolerance 0.1 mm / minimum raw thickness at least 1.2 mm . This way the system will not go back to some areas where little stuff remained.
so he reasons ridge but should be the same for it.

ciauz

Thank you very much, very kind.

 

[ziotoy]

Hi.

Sorry irony. .

The problem is that not even v.9 of peaks offer exciting results. . .
I'll explain.

the minimum residual rough parameter (in and ) "works" in the walls that tend to the vertical.

If you go to sgross 3d silhouettes with gradients from 0 to 45° we say the parameter is useless.
the recovery of roughness will go in an insolent and annoying way to remove the levels left by the previous tool on the whole figure. instead of limiting to those areas where the previous tool, for reasons of size, could not empty. Here.
this worknc does it great. with the only limitation of having to do the resumption of roughing with the same z step of the main roughing. the difference is that in peaks 'by setting the "minimum rough thickness" you avoid some past (but not all those that do not serve anything that go to identify the overmetal of the tool prec on the surf where the parameter does not affect...) while with worknc the rip of sgros goes to risgrossare where you would expect or where the main uternsilone failed to enter.

details for the most... dries for camouflage...
dylan

That's exactly what happens to me... That's why I was asking for lumens on the raw min.
But apparently there is nothing to overcome.
Say hi.

 

[Dylan]

for topguy,

I don't understand what you mean... As for me the parameter works on the vertical edges of the pocket as you say. but does not work on flat surfing. Do we mean the same thing? ?


for Uncle

be' from it to peaks there are differences in better.. and worse (in worse it is relative because you can use it strategies). remain some choices of the designers of the cam that I just do not understand. . .

one for all?

in the "bitangenza" of it it was possible to set type 3-4 passed in z then, with the optimizer, remove the movements in air so as to remove little at a time any "piene" zones that maybe remain from the previous lav.

in the bitang of and (just a algorithm with 10-15 years less..) no. you get the fresa that flies in the air (as it says from me rubs the air). There are many situations where this problem arises (see in the processing of sheet metal equipment where a defined model is almost never cut but sets of faces and curves of trim..) and both in 2010. in general no q strategy has the most useful "remove air movements...

It can always be used but the mix of 2 "structures" of programming which are the strategies of it (obligation of contours, possibility to set incremental safety..) and those of and, in the more complex processes create some confusion and increase the chances of wrong:-(

dylan

 

[cimaguy]

dylan,
Yes, we probably mean the same thing.

about bitangenza shooting: see if you activate the flag"multi pass"

opens the possibility to work with an increase in z or offset surfaces.

 

[Dylan]

dylan,
... if you activate the flag"multi pass"
opens the possibility to work with an increase in z or offset surfaces.

I know the multipass flag. and it is worth the same speech of the increase in z... bitang q cannot remove the movements in the air while that of it si.

what I would have in mind as an ideal would be a cam able to apply the same parameters to all types of procedure. imagine to cut a piece with q strategies using part surfaces and control with differentiated offsets. as soon as you have to use a strategy of it open sky.. do the contour that you didn't have before, eye to the various offsets, recreate the criteria if you cut with the criteria, etc. etc. I don't know if I explain... always seems to use 2 different cams.. in good substance with the only q strategies you do little or however you have to lose hours and hours perfectly useless (see multi-axis roughness on pieces of great size...., see the impossibility to remove movements in air and other) while the yet lightning strategies of it, alone, reflect the technology of 10 years ago albeit of a good cam.
In a nutshell, there is a bit of disorder in the development plan that the toptron has adopted or at least there is absolutely no intention of integrating in the q functions at least all the smart and useful features present in it and, why not, integrated with new ones.

then boys to fresare with vertical tool a basin is ok also catorcio of cam from 250 euros. When you push yourself to work "with the scales" the limits come out even to the best tools. .


dylan