Hi Charlie,
I’ve been doing my first experiments this week, and a few questions/suggestions popped up already:
1/ Does PixelCNC take the length of a bit into account to avoid collisions between the router and the material?
I’m experimenting with 3d landscapes, and the smallest bit I use (1/16”) is rather short, possibly not long enough (3/16”) to get into deep valleys. As an experiment, when I set the length of the bit artificially short (e.g. 1mm), PixelCNC still seems to generate paths deep in the material, although such a short length would cause the router to bump into the material.
2/ Related question: can I model this bit in PixelCNC?
https://bitsbits.com/product/425-dnc062/
Just modelling it as a cylindrical bit with length 3/16” wouldn’t allow me to cut deep enough in the material. Modelling it as a bit with a larger length (e.g. 1”) could make the wider (conical) part of the bit crash into the material on steep cliffs or precipices in the terrain => support for a small bit with a thicker shank would be nice.
3/ I expected parallel carving to scan over the material, line by line, each time from x_0 to x_max, monotically increasing from y_0 to y_max. The algorithm seems however to cut all lines into segments, and order them by z-value. I guess there are good use cases for this approach, but in my case, it causes a lot of time being lost in travelling around. As I do a rough cutting with larger bits first, and only use the parallel carving to remove the last 1-2mm of the terrain, I expect a monotonic approach would be the most efficient.
See this video starting from 10:30 for an example of this approach:
It would be nice to have this as a parallel carving option (e.g. ’Sort cuts by Y value’).4/ A minor issue: in the interface, the precision of values is sometimes lost; e.g. when setting the tool diameter to 0.25”, closing the parameters and re-opening it, it is shown as 0.3” (although I expect it is correctly stored internally and applied in the calculations, as it is still shown with full precision on the technical drawing of the bit).
Thanks for looking into my questions!
Best regards,
fordy