Hi @SethCNC
The “stock to leave” feature is not the most important feature i was trying to summarize. I do see you point of optimizing time on finishing
The core of the post is to force the roughing to perform the pass even if the actual depth needed is only a subset of the cutting depth defined
The sample math you proposed works fine on works where the surface is pretty much plain. Which is not the case on topos and probably on many of the use cases where people is loading STL’s ( volumes and figures ). In a topo I will most likely have points of any depth needed. I build this table to summarize it
As you can see is not possible to set a cut depth that suits properly on any point.
I did not test the finishig using Easel because as there is no parameter of cut depth on the finishing I would simply get the finishing bit broken at the very first minute …
I do have a program generating the gcode from STL files taking into account pretty much the params covered on “Cut Settings” on Easel. However i still have some bugs, specially on frames endings probably not easy to notice on the pictures and XY shifts seem smoother on Easel than on my raw gcode. I do not have any interest on mantaining or evolving this logic if Easel Pro does the work fine.
I do have the optimization mentioned implemented on my routine and is simply like this
- Get the min depth of any point covered by the roughing carve
- If is smaller that the defined cut depth, you actually substract the difference in order to honor the min depth allowed at that XY
- Plain surfaces are detected too and in those cases I do force “stock to leave” to 0 in order to get the finishing optimization you mentioned earlier.
- If multiple elevations do exists in the area covered by the roughing bit, a configurable “stock to leave” is applied and the finishing bit must work on that area
I was capable to finish my work basically because i executed my gcode afterwards and prevent finishing bit to get broken
I do honestly do not know much about professional 3d tools on the market. My point was only to suggest an enhancement that
- Will reduce overall work times ( Almost 5h with cut depth 2mm VS barely 2h with cut depth 6mm )
- Protect machine and bits stress demand
- Unlock feasibility to accomplish more types of projects with easel pro
- In my mind , this might lead to more Pro users
In any case , my point was to share my thoughts and share ideas to make the solution better. But if my explanation has been understood and simply do not match on the current priorities/backlog, is not my intention to keep pushing in order to happen . I simply mean that is feasible, is useful , and does not seem to have a significant complexity