[tbaker2500]

Just FYI

So I'm doing a lot of work recently which requires very accurate, tiny tool paths. Using a 0.03" EM. I was finding that sprut was generating rest material (part material) which was incredibly rough, causing the the next pass to generate improperly. After days of fighting with it, I tracked down what was happening. I was using the machine definition of Tormach 1100. In the XML, it seemed to define the axis resolution as 1 thou. It limited it's resolution to that when generating the resulting part. (Not the path, mind you.) If I picked a generic 3-axis milling machine, I got much better resolution, and it's axis resolution was 1e-5. So bear in mind that this precision caps the "number of digits" accuracy in global setup.

[luv2ride]

What did you have your "number of digits" accuracy in global setup? I don't plan on running that small of endmill yet but will be doing some engraving before long.

[tbaker2500]

5 or 6 is about max for Sprut. But, I should note, this doesn't affect the generated tool path much. This affects how accurate it generates the remaining material after one pass, which is used for the workpiece on the next path. So if it thinks all the material is already been removed on a rest operation, it won't generate the tool path for that area.

[pickled]

Interesting. I have been running 7 and using 1/32 and smaller ball endmills for complex contour work without issue in regards to what you experienced tbaker. Now mind you I have lots of issues with BS collision warnings, never getting green checks and hang-ups until I restart windows and launch the program again. Thankfully no weird material issues like what you identified though. I checked my tormach parameters (as installed) and they were set to 4 digits and ie-5 for every axis but the 4th axis. I'm running build 1.6 Rev 64105. You did good in finding the issue at hand because Sprut can be damn elusive with settings and units of measure!

[mountaindew]

5 or 6 is about max for Sprut. But, I should note, this doesn't affect the generated tool path much. This affects how accurate it generates the remaining material after one pass, which is used for the workpiece on the next path. So if it thinks all the material is already been removed on a rest operation, it won't generate the tool path for that area.

I have spent a bit of time in the ring doing hand to hand combat with this software.
Just a guess as many of my errors can be traced to the tools definition library inheritance model or whatever it uses for a data structure.

Was thinking maybe this applies to what sprut is not wanting to mill or include in tool path calculations you are seeing.
Could it be the tool shape is not defined exactly and sprut calculates different results then what you see.
md

[tbaker2500]

Thanks. I've found that some projects have 1-e5 for axis precision even on the tormach machine definition. But, the XML file for the tormach definition has 1-e3 in it. So the value is getting altered by another function, somewhere.
The end mill I'm using is a straight cylindrical mill. So length would be the only factor I have control over. It's an interesting thought, I haven't looked at that yet.

[mountaindew]

After posting above I continued to think that over and figured any tool % overlap would negate this unless its a round shape tool and a scallop is left.
Another reason I can see is tool deflection, but figure your way past that!
Or a limitation of some sort as you noted above in the numeric precision.
I have experienced sprut getting lost when using the same type of operation with 2 different tools.
Example: A roughing waterline with 0.5 tool and then another with a 0.25 in same job zone and many times I noticed very strange results.
Still I don't think this is helping you much.
md

[tbaker2500]

Thanks for the thoughts. On your strange results, try paying close attention to the remaining stock. An easy way to do this is under the passes, click on stock (auto-remaining form previous operation). Then make sure you have stock and model visible. Each pass you click on should show a different amount of stock remaining, giving that you've calculated the pass. This is the only place I was able to see the cause of the poor subsequent passes, poor rest material. This matters when you are using a 1/16 EM for bulk removal, leaving 1.5 thou of radial stock, and using a .03" EM for finish pass/the areas the 1/16" can't get to.