2D Profile Cut Order

[jjwdawg]

I often have jobs that include many small parts, and maintaining vacuum hold-down can be a challenge. I typically save my thru-cuts to the very end of the job, and cut them in a specified order, so I can shut down the various zones of my vacuum table as the job progresses. (Every thru-cut opens up more table surface, reducing my static pressure; so, shutting off the areas that are finished increases the holding power for the remaining parts.)

I also make use of templates with associated layers for vector selection. This allows me to import my customer's part files, arrange them on my job and hit "Recalculate All Toolpaths" without having to manually click every vector. Some of the jobs we run have hundreds of vectors, so this is a significant time/mistake saver.

I also use the "Start at" option to set the start points for every part at the top-left. If I'm cutting the parts in bottom-to-top order, then this leaves the current part connected to the sheet of material until the very last second, further reducing my chances of hold-down issues.

When I select the "Bottom to Top" order option in the 2d profile toolpath settings, I rarely, if ever, get a job that runs in a strict bottom-to-top order. I assume Aspire is trying to optimize the cut order to minimize rapid moves, but I don't understand why it does that, since there's a separate option for that purpose. Is this a bug, or am I missing something?

I'm attaching the most recent example I've seen of this behavior. The 4th row is always cut before the first (left-most) part on the 3rd row. Since all 3 neighboring parts have been cut, and there is a significant amount of exposed spoilboard, this part almost always fails as soon as the cut starts.

Thanks!

[Adrian]

There's no file attached?

Do you have more than one ordering option selected?

[TReischl]

I agree that the results are less than optimum.

It seems like it prioritizes the start point (like upper left corner if selected) and then goes to work on the actual sequence to shorten the rapid motion. In other words, they are two different functions. The sequence seems to only be concerned about the start points which makes sense.

What I find works best for me is using two of the options. For instance, left to right AND shortest path with a start corner picked for the start point of each profile.

Here is a good example of things gone wrong with the options:

Notice that I have selected Left to Right and that path is anything BUT left to right, it is top to bottom.

Fortunately I do not do a lot of projects with tons of profiles, a vacuum table nor am I in a huge hurry where rapid time is a big deal.

[jjwdawg]

Not sure what happened with the attachment - trying again......

[jjwdawg]

Do you have more than one ordering option selected?

In the example, I used only the Bottom-to-Top option. Oddly enough, adding "shortest path" caused it to work like I wanted.

However, I just whipped up another example, consisting of an 8x16 array of squares. In this case, the bottom-to-top mode was also incorrect (it would two 2 rows at a time going left-to-right, then 1 row when working its way back to the left). However, adding the shortest-path option caused it to go all over the place, nothing close to a bottom-to-top order. I'll attach a copy of this second test file.