#Vectric customer portal full#

This is what you are talking about, right? The lined photo show that There is much more to the model than what I am showing. Is there an option? I don't mind starting over but not sure about what to do differently. I didn't see a resolution option in VCarve when importing the STL. If there is a way to get higher resolution, I am not aware of it. In Solidworks, I saved the model as an STL with 'Fine' resolution. You have to start again to change that though as the resolution is 'baked' in after the import. If you only use the corner of the board then you're not going to have the same level of detail as if you used the whole board and the more pins you have on the board to start with the cleaner the edges are. Think of the VCarve workspace as one of these: As VCarve is pixel based for 3D you're losing a lot of 'resolution'. I don't know 100% that it's contributing to the problem but you've created the job with standard resolution and then you're only using part of the material for the actual 3D model. Please let me know if I am missing something with idea of shrinking the vector rather than enlarging the model. I will play around with different offsets and am expecting to see that an offset of just 0.001' will work because, as you said, it just to get off the wall/side. The photo shows that your approach will work. I offset the vector by 1/8' then used it for the profile vector. Rather than scale the model I though I would try resizing the profile vector (easier for me). I wish that I could say that I fully understand about the pixel interactions but I did understand about keeping the tool path from the model walls. It may not look right in the model, but the important part is whether it cuts right. You need to prevent the toolpath from interacting with the walls. That's why I suggested you try making the component larger in x and y, at least on the 3 sides with vertical walls. When you run the profile path, it projects on the component (not on the carved toolpath), and the random height pixels that are almost surely there are causing this unwanted movement. Even when you set a negative offset for carving, that doesn't change the actual component. Whatever is generating these pixels, when the toolpath encounters one it jumps up off the bottom, resulting in a jag as shown in your toolpath preview. a number of things, but my guess would be that it is putting a pixel wherever there is an intersection of triangular facets on the edge in the. Finally, I would create a pocket of 0 depth, projected on the model, to clear away the final layer on the bottom. I would probably also create a couple of pockets to hog out the slanted area. If it can't take a full-depth cut, then I would create a pocket toolpath (not projected on the model) for the deepest part to hog away the material, leaving only a little bit on the bottom to get later. If it can, then I'd clear a starting circle in the middle of the pocket in a flat area, using bit pass depth to control the step-down, then generate a pocket toolpath at zero cut depth, projected on the model, using an offset strategy.

#Vectric customer portal full#

It depends on whether the bit is capable of making a full depth cut of the pocket or not. The vector defining the edges of the pocket could either be generated outside of VCarve or inside it - I would probably do it inside so that I could keep the number of nodes to a bare minimum.ДЇor the next part, it depends a bit on how aluminum machines - I haven't machined thick aluminum so take this with a grain of salt. Then I would import the model at highest resolution. I would make the model larger than the actual pocket in both x and y as mentioned above. If I were modeling this, I would only model the floor of the pocket.