Why would it do this - inefficient code

[nicksilva]

Here is a job I'm running. two simple pockets and a glue line in the middle (not important). When I run this, it starts at the top, cuts the first pass of the first pocket (ends up at the top). Then it stupidly goes down to the bottom of the job, drops the spindle to the first pass depth, comes back up and then goes back to the top where it proceeds to cut the 2nd pass of the first pocket. It then goes back to the bottom, lowers and raises the spindle, before going back to the top to start the next pocket and again does the same thing. The amount of wasted time is equal to the time of cutting a 3rd pocket. I manually took out the extra jogs and spindle moves which saved a good 20% of the run time. Considering I had 88 of these to do that saved a lot. This gets used a lot just with different spacings of the pockets and am really starting to hate Aspire for this. Is there something obvious I'm missing that would prevent it from doing this? Thanks in advance.

[IslaWW]

Depending on the size of the pocket, and I will assume they look to be what I normally a "dado", they should/could be cut with a single pass profile, rather than a pocketing operation. Simply select a bit that is slightly larger than half the dado width

[TReischl]

Pocket.PNG

Here is a job I'm running. two simple pockets and a glue line in the middle (not important). When I run this, it starts at the top, cuts the first pass of the first pocket (ends up at the top). Then it stupidly goes down to the bottom of the job, drops the spindle to the first pass depth, comes back up and then goes back to the top where it proceeds to cut the 2nd pass of the first pocket. It then goes back to the bottom, lowers and raises the spindle, before going back to the top to start the next pocket and again does the same thing. The amount of wasted time is equal to the time of cutting a 3rd pocket. I manually took out the extra jogs and spindle moves which saved a good 20% of the run time. Considering I had 88 of these to do that saved a lot. This gets used a lot just with different spacings of the pockets and am really starting to hate Aspire for this. Is there something obvious I'm missing that would prevent it from doing this? Thanks in advance.

One of the notorious things about software is that people expect it to be able to think like they do. It can't. That is why I just shake my head when people start blabbering about "artificial intelligence" when what they are really talking about is more complex algorithms. We all know that Aspire cannot "think", it does not learn from it's mistakes, etc.

What would help is if you posted the actual file, hard to tell exactly what you are doing from just looking at tool path lines. I am thinking where it drops down and goes back up that has you calling it stupid is probably a tiny fragment of material that it just knows it has to go get. Probably due to a rounding error. Gotta remember, this stuff is digital, not analog, so things like that can happen. If'n it were me I would use a cutter on a spiral tool path if at all possible.

[scottp55]

I'd probably use Gary's approach, BUT if you ever have a Pocket the same exact width as a bit....I saved a pic from another thread on my Desktop from Mark(Staff) that used the Fluting Toolpath in an interesting way with a 0 ramp;

Looks good on Preview, so I saved it to try next time I have an applicable cut.
Just mentioning.
scott