Start Depth feature

Hi, You talked a while ago about incorporating ‘Rest of Stock’ so that cutting of air is minimized, I realize that’s probably a huge undertaking. In the mean time, how difficult would it be to program a ‘Start Height’ for certain ops, like Pocket and Outline, where the user could input a value at what depth the operation should start? I realize that it would be the responsibility of the user to make sure she didn’t input a value that would cause the tool to plunge to a depth way below the uncut stock.

Also noticed the recent addition of ‘Leave Stock’ on the contour operation, this is very useful!

Many thanks

Sounds reasonable. Somewhat related to that and trying to keep the interface un-cluttered, I have considered removing the clear top option from several ops since I can’t think of a time when you wouldn’t want this. It’s a legacy of the time before stock settings was a thing. And in the near future, Stock will always be on. So I think adding a Z top (like Z bottom) would be a sensible alternative with more utility.

1 Like

A Z top on individual operations would be fantastic!

Many thanks!

I’m not actually looking at live k:m right now so maybe I’m just confused.

iirc part of the value of the clear top option was to disambiguate whether or not a flat top surface of a part nominally at the “top” z level (however derived) should be skimmed flat or not touched.

i.e. at least similar to determining whether cutting starts at 0*stepdown or 1*stepdown.

For either default, the other behavior could be cajoled by setting stock top (or z top?) a step above or below the top of a part[1] so not a big deal. Still, it would be “nice” to represent intent explicitly rather than by tweaking parameters to induce side effects.

Great if that’s all already well accounted for; apologies if I’m just burning cycles.


[1](… but k:m sometimes steps down by <stepdown; but the “clear flats” option might solve that - if same behaviour desired at part top and pocket floors; but anyhow …)

There is currently a confusing interaction between clear top and z anchors which I think needs resolving. Here is a part z-bottom anchored with and without clear top and also anchored z-top. Clear top is still relevant in the z-top anchored scenario, but not z-mid or z-bottom.

I’m confused now.
Example 1 shows z-anchored to the bottom without Clear Top?
Example 2 shows z-anchored to the bottom with Clear Top?

If my interpretation of the scenarios you present is correct, then Clear top is relevant to z-bottom anchoring?

Many thanks!

clear top is relevant to any part not anchored to z-top. and when a part is anchored to z-top, it’s a leveling pass. when I say that option goes away, I meant that for any part not z-top anchored, the clearing would be included. the fact that it doesn’t already is a legacy of old code structure.

1 Like