Hi i am trying to resurface my spoilboard, in graphic-cad I would simply hit the option to resurface, but I understand on qcad this is not an option.
I tried making a line 50x at .1 distance and it mostly did work, but it took a long time and did not work perfectly.
Are there any easier ways to achieve this? I used graphic-cad for 30+ years and no longer have access to it so im trying to adjust to this new software.
Please note that QCAD/CAM simply generates G-Code from CAD files.
It does not know or understand your specific type of machine, what tools you use or what you are doing with it or that you are even using a “spoilboard”.
From what I understand, you want to remove the top most layer of your “spoilboard” which is probably some kind of board that you use as a base underneat your workpiece, correct?
You would need to decide on a pattern to use to mill over the entire surface of the board at a given Z-level. You could use lines as you tried or for example rectangles with a fixed distance. Perhaps, you remember how this was done before, what pattern was used to achieve the best result?
In any case, this is not really related to QCAD/CAM but rather to your specific use case. The result depends on the pattern you use, not the software you use to create that pattern.
thank you so much for taking the time to answer me, I will do more research.
Hi,
There is an Addon-Tool in the pipeline that pockets a given area in Zig-Zag mode.
You could then define an area larger than your spoilboard and clear that with one continuous tool path.
Zig-Zag is not the best option because that switches continuously between Conventional and Climbing.
In my CNC-driver soft I wrote 2 G-code macros that creates a rectangular or circular pocket in a spiraling fashion. It would not be that hard to convert those to a JS-script.
In any way, it would be nothing more than a continuous connected Polyline (or several) that must then be handled by QCAD/CAM as a tool path to follow ‘On path’.
Regards,
CVH
(Using QCAD Forum Dumbcourse)
thank you so much for that answer it helps a lot. I will try that.
thank you Andrew, I will try using rectangles with fixed distances, it makes perfect sense to do that, again thank you so much.
Not entirely … One continuous path has the advantage that the cutter height is steady in Z. Nested shapes have the disadvantage that the cutter is retracted and plunges down after a traverse to the start of the next (closed) path. The cutter will not always plunge to the same exact depth, unless your repetition accuracy is fabulously perfect. For a larger table with a reasonably small (fast) cutter and/or a limited tool allowance, we are easily talking about hundreds of plunges. Regards, CVH