Cut all the way to the edge

[joeporter]

https://portal.vectric.com/login Try this link and go from there...joe

[WaltS]

and really puzzled you say you can't find the install file - its downloadable from your Vectric Portal Account.)

What's the Vectric Portal Account? We have the ShopBot edition so it's probably different.

You download the Shopbot version of VCP from the shopbot site with the link they supplied you. You probably don't even have (or need) a Vectric Portal Acct since you got the software from SB with your machine.

Also, you said something about the software not being useful without the machine. You have 2 pieces of software, Vectric VCP and Shopbot SB3 control software. I think the only thing that applies here is the Vectric software which is very useful even without a machine.

[Adrian]

Looking at your file if all you want to do is to put a rounded edge on a block it would be much more efficient to use a profile toolpath with a roundover tool or a moulding toolpath if you don't have a roundover bit.

[mtylerfl]

...use a profile toolpath with a roundover tool or a moulding toolpath if you don't have a roundover bit.

Yup, exactly my first thoughts from the get-go.

BTW, I'm in the midst of a Vectric project from last night, all day today and tomorrow. Just taking a short break now and have not even downloaded the file myself. Lost my window of time waiting for it.

[dryphi]

Looking at your file if all you want to do is to put a rounded edge on a block it would be much more efficient to use a profile toolpath with a roundover tool or a moulding toolpath if you don't have a roundover bit.

This file is just an example. I intended to make the 3D model as simple as possible by using a fillet on a cube. The roundover bit might work in this case but not in all cases. I have the same problem with other models and more complicated geometry.

The question still remains - how do I get surfacing operations to extend all the way to the edge of a part?

Please let me know what is wrong with the VCarve file in this simple example so that I can apply the solution more broadly and use the software appropriately. Thanks

[mtylerfl]

Your material size is too small (i.e., same size as the model). That's why there is no room for an offset to carve the entire roundover/curve. Enlarge your material appropriately, center your model and go to town!

[dryphi]

Your material size is too small (i.e., same size as the model). That's why there is no room for an offset to carve the entire roundover/curve. Enlarge your material appropriately, center your model and go to town!

Isn't the material supposed to be same size as the material you're actually using? Or is it a bit of a misnomer?

[mtylerfl]

Absolutely not the same size of your model! The material needs to be larger than the "contents" so there is room to do your machining (cutouts, carving, etc)

This one was a new one on me. I've not seen a case where someone made the material the same size as a model. I've seen plenty of times where a user always makes the material size the same as the entire machine bed when the contents of a project only occupies a small area. (That is equally wrong.)

Just setup your job material large enough to accommodate your "contents" and toolpaths and room for any mechanical hold downs (clamps, screws or vacuum).

I'm not sure if you have had a chance to watch many of the video tutorials. That's where you will learn about appropriate Offset amounts for bit radii and so on, when carving dimensional reliefs, roundovers, et al.

[dryphi]

Great thanks. I just assumed that "material" literally meant the stock of material you were machining your part out of. I guess the name is misleading.

I have watched a few YouTube videos and such and there were a few videos that came on a flash drive with the ShopBot. Maybe I could go through some of them again.
Are there any tutorials in particular you suggest we start with?

Thanks again... dumb question I guess

[mtylerfl]

When you layout a job, typically the material size you create in the software IS the same size of the actual material you place on your machine bed. This should not be confusing.

Example, let's say you have a project that requires a material size of 12" x 12" in order to fit everything you will be tooling with your ShopBot and allows room for bit kerfs and offsets, hold downs, etc

Therefore, the material you secure to your machine bed must be at least 12" x 12" (it can be larger if you want, but not smaller).

The way you had your job setup was the material size was the same size as the model. Obviously, that is wrong - the poor bit had no room to machine the model, and no room for any Offset to properly go past the round over edge by at least the radius of the bit. The result was failure as you already know.

Ok...I gotta get back to work...

[dryphi]

Well I understand but in this case the material I defined in VCarve WAS the same size as the actual material I was using to machine from. Hence I guess the source of confusion.
For instance if I wanted to machine the part shown in the image below (3D model dimensions of 50x50x25mm) I would start with 50x50mm polyethylene bar stock from McMaster cut to the height of the part. Now you're suggesting that if I wanted to add radii or other finishing operations around the edges, then I would have to start with a bigger material size in VCarve than my actual source material. Is that a work around? I guess it doesn't matter as long as the end result is what you want.

Seems like there should be a way to tell VCarve that it's okay to move beyond the material boundaries.

[mtylerfl]

...Now you're suggesting that if I wanted to add radii or other finishing operations around the edges, then I would have to start with a bigger material size in VCarve than my actual source material. Is that a work around?

Thank you for providing a most complete explanation. I now understand where you got confused. It's not a workaround to make the "virtual" material in the software large enough to machine your smaller part - it's just the "way it is". You MUST allow physical room to permit the part to be fully machined. The only way to do that is set up your virtual material size larger than your McMaster part.

Seems like there should be a way to tell VCarve that it's okay to move beyond the material boundaries.

Not really. This is how the software works and is expected. Think of it this way...the virtual material edges are walls that cannot be machined, nor seen in a toolpath preview to verify your project will turn out as designed. The contents and toolpaths need to be confined within your virtual material layout edges so that you can preview and review your toolpaths.

Thanks again for your persistence. I'm certain you'll be able to make good headway now with your future layouts. As always, holler if you need help. But do watch the Vectric tutorials for accelerated learning. http://support.vectric.com/training-material

You asked which ones to start with - the short ones are the Tips & Tricks videos. Watch the longer ones as you have the chance. I've watched ALL of them.

[ger21]

Is that a work around?

No, it's a lack of understanding about how V Carve works, and the process in general.

You are going about this in the least efficient way possible, from a machining standpoint. The things you are trying to do are much better done without using an .stl file at all.
I've never seen anyone create vectors from the grayscale view of an .stl file, and didn't even know it was possible.

Seems like there should be a way to tell VCarve that it's okay to move beyond the material boundaries.

You can create vectors outside the material boundaries , and V Carve will happily machine them. Just not the way you are trying to do it.

[IslaWW]

This is quite common in todays world. All the youngin's are taught that you need a 3d model for everything, when the reality is that only an undulating, not able to be mathematically defined, surface requires 3D cutting.

Most of the machining operations we do with 3 axis routers were done before we had electricity. A rotating tool suspended from a chuck or arbor over a table. Sounds like a drill press or overarm (pin) router. The early versions of those tools ran on steam or water line drive power. How did they do that in the 1800's? They sure as hell didn't use a computer generated 3D model.

In most cases 2D machining results in mush faster, easier to generate toolpaths with better finishes.

[mtylerfl]

I blame the hobby 3D printing industry for "brainwashing" the masses to think they need 3D models for the simplest of tasks that can be done easily with efficient use of vector-based toolpaths

Those stinkers!