Creating a lip or recessed profile cut?

[martin54]

You need to think about how you are going to cut something while you are designing it, you know you need a pocket toolpath but there is no way to get a pocket toolpath to work with the 2 vectors you have on the screen so you create one from the 2 vectors you have
That is all sharkcutup has done which can be seen if you look at the pictures he has posted.

[adze_cnc]

You’ll also need to think about what will happen when a round bit tries to clear up a pointed corner such as where the bird’s-mouth portion on the left meets the Hexagon. I looks like shartcutup avoids problems by having the boundary for the pocket toolpath extend beyod the edge of the material.

[martin54]

You’ll also need to think about what will happen when a round bit tries to clear up a pointed corner such as where the bird’s-mouth portion on the left meets the Hexagon. I looks like shartcutup avoids problems by having the boundary for the pocket toolpath extend beyod the edge of the material.

He also uses a smaller tool I think as a cleanup, I would just offset the rectangular vector outwards by just over the radius of the bit & extend the ends of the other vector
I was going to mention that but got sidetracked by something else

[sharkcutup]

Post by martin54 » Sun Jan 22, 2023 6:09 pm

adze_cnc wrote: ↑Sun Jan 22, 2023 5:35 pm
You’ll also need to think about what will happen when a round bit tries to clear up a pointed corner such as where the bird’s-mouth portion on the left meets the Hexagon. I looks like shartcutup avoids problems by having the boundary for the pocket toolpath extend beyod the edge of the material.
He also uses a smaller tool I think as a cleanup, I would just offset the rectangular vector outwards by just over the radius of the bit & extend the ends of the other vector
I was going to mention that but got sidetracked by something else
Top

Martin54 & adze_cnc

+1 Right on !!!

I was just doing quick representations without going into all the fine and nitty gritty stuff and YES My cleanup bit was .125" and the pocket vector was set a bit bigger than the actual material.

Thank You for Your Input Guys!!!

Sharkcutup

[Natenator76]

Three Actual Toolpaths Used --- These are the "Settings" I used!!!

1.) Hog out --- Pocket ToolPath .25" Endmill
2.) CleanUP --- .125" Endmill to cleanup Both at .125" deep Offset Cut Direction "Climb"
Inside a Closed Vector - Pocket ToolPath

3.) Profile ToolPath with a .125" Pointed Roundover Bit Machine Vector -- "ON" Direction "Climb"

Sharkcutup

Appreciate you for this but it still doesn't make any sense to me lol I mean I get what you're doing with the toolpaths but I have no idea how you were able to pocket one side vs the other when it's an open vector. That's where I am drawing a blank.

Probably gonna have to shelve this idea for a bit until I can learn more lol

[sharkcutup]

Appreciate you for this but it still doesn't make any sense to me lol I mean I get what you're doing with the toolpaths but I have no idea how you were able to pocket one side vs the other when it's an open vector. That's where I am drawing a blank.

Probably gonna have to shelve this idea for a bit until I can learn more lol

Two Vectors Used
A Closed Vector for the Pocket
and then an Open Vector for the Pointed Roundover Edge

Watch this video it might make sense to you after!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7e8s5c5b5m44w ... o.mp4?dl=0

Sharkcutup

[adze_cnc]

"Is this what you want?" posts can irritate me because 9 times out of 10 (made up statistic) no sample file is posted and the original is left asking for the file to look at. I'm all for letting the questioner find out how to do things for himself and will often provide clues to guide that person to an answer. But, if you are going to "show how it's done" then do that fully.
 

 
Attached is a sample file I just made up quickly. The toolpaths will need to be recalculated before you run the preview. They are uncalculated to save file space.

There are two hidden and locked layers that contain the original vectors. Note how the vectors in the "bird mouth pocket" layer have been offset from the ones in the "_base bird mouth" layer. This is so that the pocket toolpath will ride off the edge of the plateau and guarantee the no anomalies are left behind.

To see what happens if you don't offset them just create a pocket toolpath using the shape in "_base bird mouth" and compare it to my bird mouth pocket.

Steven

[sharkcutup]

Thank You,

Stephen oop!!!! sorry Steven

[Natenator76]

"Is this what you want?" posts can irritate me because 9 times out of 10 (made up statistic) no sample file is posted and the original is left asking for the file to look at. I'm all for letting the questioner find out how to do things for himself and will often provide clues to guide that person to an answer. But, if you are going to "show how it's done" then do that fully.
 
simulation.jpg
 
Attached is a sample file I just made up quickly. The toolpaths will need to be recalculated before you run the preview. They are uncalculated to save file space.

There are two hidden and locked layers that contain the original vectors. Note how the vectors in the "bird mouth pocket" layer have been offset from the ones in the "_base bird mouth" layer. This is so that the pocket toolpath will ride off the edge of the plateau and guarantee the no anomalies are left behind.

To see what happens if you don't offset them just create a pocket toolpath using the shape in "_base bird mouth" and compare it to my bird mouth pocket.

Steven

Thank you for this. I see what you did to create this which makes perfect sense for this example. In my haste to simplify the question for easy understanding of what I was looking to achieve I realized I hamstrung myself for my own specific project because the example doesn't come close to fitting my real needs.

I wanted to send you a private thanks but you have DM's turned off it seems lol

Thank you once again

[Natenator76]

Appreciate you for this but it still doesn't make any sense to me lol I mean I get what you're doing with the toolpaths but I have no idea how you were able to pocket one side vs the other when it's an open vector. That's where I am drawing a blank.

Probably gonna have to shelve this idea for a bit until I can learn more lol

Two Vectors Used
A Closed Vector for the Pocket
and then an Open Vector for the Pointed Roundover Edge

Watch this video it might make sense to you after!

https://www.dropbox.com/s/7e8s5c5b5m44w ... o.mp4?dl=0

Sharkcutup

Yeah that makes a bit more sense now. Thank you!

[martin54]

Thank you for this. I see what you did to create this which makes perfect sense for this example. In my haste to simplify the question for easy understanding of what I was looking to achieve I realized I hamstrung myself for my own specific project because the example doesn't come close to fitting my real needs.

The actual CRV file (copyright permitting) or screenshots often help the most, no-ne can really help if they don't know exactly what you want to achieve, you know but we can only guess
If you now understand the process then it should work with any project, you need to create a closed vector for a pocket toolpath to work. How you create that closed vector may be achieved in a number of different ways. If you have vectors defining the 2 sides of the board you would like to pocket one side of as in the example you posted then you already have everything you need onscreen to create a closed vector

[Natenator76]

Thank you for this. I see what you did to create this which makes perfect sense for this example. In my haste to simplify the question for easy understanding of what I was looking to achieve I realized I hamstrung myself for my own specific project because the example doesn't come close to fitting my real needs.

The actual CRV file (copyright permitting) or screenshots often help the most, no-ne can really help if they don't know exactly what you want to achieve, you know but we can only guess
If you now understand the process then it should work with any project, you need to create a closed vector for a pocket toolpath to work. How you create that closed vector may be achieved in a number of different ways. If you have vectors defining the 2 sides of the board you would like to pocket one side of as in the example you posted then you already have everything you need onscreen to create a closed vector

Thank you for this.

Spent a couple hours this afternoon to sit down and hack my way through it and *think* I understand the process now.

This shows the pocketing...

This shows the profile cut...

Now I just need to figure out how to add a 1/4th roundover on the curved lip and a 1/4 roundover on inside/outside of the top portion.


Does this look like I am on the right path?

Thanks again so all. Really appreciate yall pushing me in the right direction and helping me think through logistics.

[martin54]

Is that going to be a double-sided project or is the pocket just on one side? I would probably do it as 2 separate parts in all honesty rather than remove that much material from a thicker piece Maybe even use 2 different woods for contrast.

It depends on what sort of round over bit you are using if you are using a Point round bit then you can set it to profile cut on the line, if you are using the sort that you might use for a hand held router or router table (with the bearing removed then you will need to use an offset.

You will need to create another open vector for the outside profile if you don't want to round over the whole of the base part
When you come to toolpath the open vector you may need to move the start node so the roundover cuts on the correct side of the line.

Just one other quick point, the toolpath preview is very accurate so if things look right once you have run that then they almost certainly are. If I ever have a problem at the machine then the software is the last place I look . So far for me it has never been a problem with the software

[Natenator76]

Is that going to be a double-sided project or is the pocket just on one side? I would probably do it as 2 separate parts in all honesty rather than remove that much material from a thicker piece Maybe even use 2 different woods for contrast.

Right now the design is two separate parts as shown in these two images...

I'm just trying to see if I can improve the process for more consistency. Right now, I'm securing the top to the base with brad nails which means I need to be dead nuts accurate with the placement of the top on the base. Hiding the hole marks is a bit of an unsightly issue as well.

So yeah, just trying to see if I can create a design that improves the process while maintaining the aesthetics of two separate parts.

Thank you again for your comments and help.

[Natenator76]

Well I was able to get this to work so thank you to all for the help and direction.

I didn't do the roundovers because I didn't have the appropriate pointed roundover bits but the biggest challenge was the pocketing.

I'm not sure if I will continue on this path as it didn't exactly look the way I was hoping/expecting to. If I decide to get the roundover bits for it then I may adjust my perception but right now it looks to "premade" instead of handcrafted, if that makes sense.

Thanks again.