[bseibenick]

Doesn't work at all on 3d parts though. He is planning to practice on 2d parts, then apply the strategy to 3d parts. I'll be putting a video together Monday that will give more information on why 3d parts are difficult to perform this task on, particularly when you only have 3 Axis Mill Pro vs. the multiaxis strategies that Mike (MikeC8) has access to. Between 2 Curves in multiaxis is probably the best one to use, but short of that you just have to work around some compromises in 3 Axis Pro strategies. The reason it is difficult is that as the radius is being generated on more of an angled intersection of surfaces, the distance from the inside and outside joints between the radius surface and the intersecting surfaces starts to vary, closer as the angle increases, This can play tricks with 3 Axis strategies, but in multiaxis the toolpath will morph the distance between passes, essentially squishing evenly when the distance narrows and expanding when it increases. This causes the Z jaggies that Mike referred to earlier, along with the tolerances of trying to trace a near vertical edge if set to "outside -> in" as you would want it to be (moving out .001" can drop the toolpath .050", so the Z axis jumps up and down around the tolerance where Z-level keeps it even). I use a horizontal drive surface to stabilize the Equidistant Offset Z axis motion, which makes the code come out very smooth like Z-Level, and once you start the motion smooth, all the following stepovers tend to stay smooth as well since it's just offseting. If you have a jagged start, the offset will be similarly crappy, so getting that smooth start is the key.

Once I get a handle on things one of the parts that I am hoping to make is a velocity stack plate/adapter for an intake manifold. This would have a radius like the test part but then it will have a slight taper down (about 7deg) to the bottom of the part. That is why I thought this would be a good 'test' to start with. I would assume the machining strategy would be very similar to the one you showed me.

[mmoe]

Once I get a handle on things one of the parts that I am hoping to make is a velocity stack plate/adapter for an intake manifold. This would have a radius like the test part but then it will have a slight taper down (about 7deg) to the bottom of the part. That is why I thought this would be a good 'test' to start with. I would assume the machining strategy would be very similar to the one you showed me.

Depending on the part, it sounds like Z-Level may work just as well or better in that application. Just depends on how three dimensional the roundover is. If the roundover stays on the same plane, but the part is three dimensional, I'd go with Z-Level. If the roundover is three dimensional itself, meaning it doesn't stay on the same plane, but instead follows an edge that changes Z heights, then Equidistant Offset would be better in the method I use it.

I have started putting together at tutorial, but it's a bigger task that I anticipated and will take a few more days to get done. I only have a small window each day where there isn't a bunch of noise in the background, which makes it hard to record a video with sound! I'll keep working on it and let you know when it's done. I can say this, it will be a long video, so you'll really have to want to watch it. I'm guessing it may be a 90 minute tutorial, or somewhere in that range. I am showing how to create geometry which you can replicate, so that you can follow along and get the same results on your own. I could make it much shorter if I skip the modeling and the detailed explanation of why I model it that way, but I think that would make it harder to apply the concept to other parts.

[bseibenick]

Thank you for all the help and I look forward towards your video.

Brian