Equivalent to Carvewright Bit Optimization in Aspire?

[wanderingwood]

Is there a equivalent to the CarveWright Bit Optimization setting in Aspire 3.5?

The Optimization setting allows you to choose how to handle a bit that is larger than a recess in a carving.

The attached screen shot of the menu shows this very clearly, a "V" path and how deep into it you want the bit to go.

Bit Optimization Menu.jpg

CarveWright Bit Optimization menu


Here are some renders of the same carving at different optimization settings, I have only been able to get the tool path I generate to follow the equivalent to the "NONE" setting when I would like the medium for this carving. The render in Aspire is not showing what comes out on the wood.

Bit Optimization

Bit Optimization set to none, notice the antenna.

Bit Optimization

Bit Optimization set to Medium, compare the antenna to the above None setting

The Best setting is not really useful in the CarveWright as it usually brings out edge dithering artifacts in the raster images that the CW uses, but the other settings do have it uses when carving molds. Since I am using the Tapered Ball Nose bit to carve the 3d models I thought about creating a tool model with a smaller than true tip size but figured that would distort the true edges of the model.

Thanks for your insights.
Richard

[jam1962]

Wouldnt setting the resolution in Aspire higher have the same effect. Seems thats what Carvewrite is doing, there just calling it by a different name.

[Mike-S]

I'm wondering why you'd want to do that. From the menu picture above and Carvewright's site, it appears that at anything less than BEST, the chosen bit will destroy sharp edges. Aspire is set to BEST all the time.
If you really want to cut at less than best, you can lie to Aspire and use a slightly larger bit than the one selected in the tool path. But then that will affect everything, not just tight corners.

[mtylerfl]

Hi Richard,

Bit Optimization settings in the CW Designer have to do with the offset of the bit. I normally recommend that everyone using the software select their PTN's (patterns) and choose the Bit Optimization: BEST setting. Since most of the carving on a CarveWright machine is using a tapered 1/16" BN with a 7° angle, the BEST setting assures the bit will not remove any of the original PTN...in other words, that setting applies enough of a bit offset that the entire PTN will be carved without diminishing the PTN quality in any way. It's not a direct analogy, but setting a bit path offset in Aspire will accomplish pretty much the same thing.

It is extrememly rare that a user would not want to choose Bit Optimization: BEST, but some of the gallery photos in the CW Forum reveal that many users are not savvy on that (you can tell the carving has suffered). I've suggested to CarveWright that they make the BEST setting the default since that will assure the best quality carve, but they explained to me that folks running "less capable" computers will experience a noticable drag on their system while creating a layout/design. They recommend to save that setting as the very last step when finalizing a layout to avoid the drag on slower computers.

Now, just as important, is the quality setting you choose when uploading a project to the CW Memory Card. This is very different than the Bit Optimization. This is what determines the stepover percentage of the Carving Bit itself, and has nothing to do with Bit Optimization when creating a layout. There are four quality choices when uploading a project:

• Draft - equal to a 16.6% stepover
• Normal - 12.5% stepover
• Best - 8.3% stepover
• Optimal - 6.2% stepover

On highly detailed carvings, or carvings that have areas that may be prone to chipout, I use the OPTIMAL setting. Be aware this has a significant effect on the time it takes to carve a project. Roughly, the OPTIMAL setting takes about twice as long as the BEST setting (but I feel the results are worth the extra time)

[wanderingwood]

Best in Carvewright, when carving negative, brings out dithering artifacts. When carving positive the little single pixel bumps are taken out by the passes on either side, but when carving into the material, the bumps are little plunges into the material. I try to get as close to Best as the quality of the purchased pattern will allow me. The Carvewright software recognizes this behavior and renders it on the preview since it only has 1 defined raster carving bit. But my question isn't on the Carvewright software, its how to get the Aspire program to give me the same control.

The Aspire software appears to be defaulting to the equivalent to None from the way it carves the antenna and legs on Honey Bee on a negative carving. I am trying to make a mold cavity for pouring bees wax cakes and need the small exaggeration in the definition of the extremities that I am able to define through the Carvewright software.

Here is the Aspire software render of the bee

And the tool path render, compare the depth of the legs and notice that the antenna in the tool path barely even scratched the surface because the 1/16 tapered ball nose bit is wider than the purchased pattern's detail at this scale.

I was concerned about faking the software on the size and shape of the bit because of the effects on the edges of the rest of the pattern. If anyone else has tried this I would really like to hear your results. The Bit optimization option on the Carvewright only effects the narrowest elements where the bit does not fit into the pattern, the edges of the body are not enlarged or blurred because the the bit is bigger then the tool path generator thinks it is.

Thanks for your feedback

Richard

[mtylerfl]

Hi Richard,

What bit are you using to cut this with?...and what machine are you cutting it with? Also, I assume you have already tried setting a bit offset around the model that is a tad over the bit diameter you are using...correct? (If not, try that and see if your bee's antennas are retained.)

By the way, the CW does not introduce artifacts...it is only reproducing what is already in the pattern/model itself. I do not know where you bought the pattern, but I know of at least one CW pattern seller that ALL of his patterns have strange artifacts show up when Bit Optimization: BEST is chosen. This is not normal...it has to do with how the vendor created/converted/saved the patterns.

[wanderingwood]

For my new work I am using a 1/16" tapered ball nose in the Rockler Shark Pro HD. The bit came from Nextwave Automation and I was advised to use the parameters from Precise Bits.com

Where can I find the bit offset you mentioned. The Aspire documentation does not list it under that name. If you mean the Boundary Vector Offset from the Finish machining Toolpath, it didn't help.

I know the Carvewright software does not produce the artifacts, I said using the Best setting brought them out when carving a negative image at that setting. This happens in patterns I have purchased from a variety of sources, including Carvewright's included patterns and Vector Art 3D and others:

But all that is beside the point. I can get the CW to do what I want, I'm trying to figure out how to do the same quality of work with the Shark and the Aspire software.

Richard

[mtylerfl]

Hi Richard,

Yes, Boundary Vector offset was what I thought you could try. Sorry to hear that didn't work for you.

Perhaps if the model you have is in STL (or Aspire format...crv3d), you could try to edit it to see if you can eliminate or reduce those artifacts. I'm out of ideas other than that.