Conventional roughing; climb finishing?

It happens not to matter for the model I’m working on, but conventional roughing and climb finishing is common enough to make me wonder what the kiri:moto workflow would be for toolpathing that scenario. Do you just pull the same piece into two workspaces and toolpath twice, and make sure that the origin is set the same?

Obviously, the same applies for any of the other output options; I might want to rough with ease down but not need that for a finishing pass.

Currently this requires toggling and exporting gcode for each op. Do you recommend adding it as another checkbox at the bottom of the roughing and outline ops?

Maybe I’m just missing how to toggle. I see the “x” to delete an op, but not an enable/disable toggle. Am I looking in the wrong place?

At least for me, setting up the ops separately makes sense since I don’t have a toolchanger. Having separate gcode for each op will work fine.

As the naive new kiri:moto user: conventional/climb, ease down, and depth first are things I would have looked for under the op, not under the job output options tab.

I’m still quite new at this hobby so I am hesitant to give advice and more eager to learn from others. My assumptions have been colored by some minor early experience in FreeCAD where I guess you might modify a setup sheet for a job but I believe the primary place to specify climb/conventional is the op not the job. Certainly when I’m machining manually, even with the same bit I’ll rough conventionally and climb my finish pass for a smoother finish, and that finish pass is really a separate op since I’m using different parameters even if I’m the computer. :slight_smile:

I’m not doing two-sided (yet…), but I could imagine that just running separate jobs for separate ops wouldn’t work well with register/flip? Trying to imagine how that would work.

Yes, this is not currently easy, and so I think moving that checkbox into each individual operation makes sense. I’ll schedule that addition for later in the week.

2 Likes

I was wanting something like this in the last couple of days, and thinking of what to ask for.

Like @mcdanlj, climb/conv isn’t the only global option that could be helpful to change at the op level. But otoh adding a lot of per-op checkboxes for things that more likely won’t change doesn’t sound like a win.

An idea: add to ops a couple of checkboxes to override global ‘output’ and ‘limits’ parameters. If checked, expand ‘output’ or ‘limits’ parameters for that op.

I’m trying to keep everything stable for the imminent 2.9 release – after that I plan to engage in substantial refactoring for 3.0. Some of this stuff is already on the todo list. However, I welcome issue tickets to memorialize requests so I don’t lose them.

What is the advantage of doing conventional first and finish with climb cutting? I’m just trying to learn, I’m self taught by experimenting a lot. Why not do rough and finish with conventional cutting?

Also self-taught here.

Conventional cuts are more stable when removing more material; climb cuts can give a better surface finish when you are removing very little material. When manually milling, I often do conventional milling for stock removal and then do a very light pass with climb milling. Try it; the difference in finish can be amazing.