I continue to persist that chosen tool is inappropriate to these jobs.
I am sure using of path array does not improve job performance, but increasing feeds, step overs and step downs does it.
I noticed you leaves stock with default margins from “Extend model’s bounding box” setup, but you omits any implied millface and profile perimeter operations.
If your workpiece already have required dimensions you should not give any additional margins (set all Ext values to 0 or just choose “Create box” from dropdown list).
Also you can create in separate Body exact model of workpiece and choose it in “Use existing solid”.
In the Help subforum TNP mentioned at every page and not once.
You should avoid to attach sketches to generated geometry.
But any Path operation is subjected to TNP, and any addition or removing of features to the model probably will break list of operation’s objects. So polishing of Path op’s while model still in design is rather useless.
Blocks in your projects has different thickness (15.7 mm and 15.3 mm), and I’ve put this and some other dimensions of Bullet_pocketonly.FCStd into spreadsheet.
Set of Path operations and tool only as example.
Snip macro screenshot-0549d0.png
It will better to remove CutMaterial and CutTool objects from .FCStd before attaching to post, because CutMaterial objects can significantly increase file size but have no valuable information.
I understand your insistence on the tool selection and is not lost. It is the largest end cutter that I have (except the 3mm that was sent out to be re-sharpened) with the set I ordered with the CnC, which was OK not the greatest quality.
Here shortly ( 15 days or so) I will be ordering a larger collet (1/4"). Which means I will be ordering stiffer endmills in the 1/4" shank dia, the 2.8mm is one that I will look at as well as 3mm and 1/4" . I don’t know if I will go with IDC woodcraft or Amana for the next bit order.
On the thickness I must have made a typo with the 15.3mm as I was trying to attempting to redo the file.
On the TNP issue do you think it would present itself as a issue if the path was deleted cut material tool etc
then redo the path ?
I had thought about the boundary being reset to zero, just didn’t do it, thanks for the tip.
Good news. Sometime operations (millface e.g) requires rough tools, otherwise it will take too many time.
On the thickness I must have made a typo with the 15.3mm as I was trying to attempting to redo the file.
I’d suppose this. With spreadsheet you’ll made a typo common for all dependent features.
On the TNP issue do you think it would present itself as a issue if the path was deleted cut material tool etc
then redo the path ?
If I get you right… In any operation you can change tool (Tool Controller by view) with another one available in Job → Tools. Op’s path will be recomputed with new tool’s geometry.
Snip macro screenshot-b8744a.png
It has nothing to the TNP.
You can minimize TNP in PartDesign, but Path op’s are vulnerable to TNP by design (ATM).
If you will decide add a chamfer to the block, it looks OK
Chamfer.png
but in op’s you’ll get a mess
Chamfer_Ops.png