1/2
Well, I’m not giving anything up because my machine doesn’t like to cut slots. But if it did, this would work for me:
For me I’d rather not bet more bits on the the last few layers, particularly with the small/thin/fragile bit needed to cut this part:
(eh, that’s not the example I thought it would be. just those five slices might go ok. but the inside is actually straight down the full thickness and around the outer ends of the teeth become intermittent slots for ~1/2 thickness)
Roughing with “clear voids” solves the inner outline (in reasonable time for small voids) but the outside remains unsolved.
Outlining with “wide cutout” would solve the bottom of that part:
But I can’t cut the outlines without roughing off material over the top half of the part and the bottom half of the “wide cutout” perimeter:
So:
a) I do think there is function in “outside” roughing that outlining does not duplicate, and that other people might miss more than I would.
b) responding to your rfc gets me talking about wanting outside roughing with something like “wide cutout” again. (or outlining that includes roughing as needed to complete the outline operation)
The “ex24.km” export I sent earlier this evening should include this part and config parameters other than en/disabling rough/outlining.
2/2
From outside the black box, I do see that roughing inside pockets works.
Hence the idea of accomplishing not-inside roughing by internally constructing an implicit pocket and roughing inside that. Today I see that roughing already respects tabs (pretty obvious - I just haven’t used tabs and didn’t have like KM to look at), so my concern that the idea was “getting less ‘easy’” was spurious.
which is super amazingly great for amateur CAM that you’re a) giving so much effort to this and b) rethinking and reworking so much of what you’ve already done!
So beyond floating an idea for what might be low-hanging fruit for the current codebase (roughing inside implicit pocket), I guess I’m just trying to speak up for a use case that seems unaccounted for. Unless I’m really just not getting it.