The test piece that is marked q.c. approved doesn’t look that great. There are several obvious spots where the bit strayed and all the corners look overcut, but maybe the corners are part of a file that doesn’t look great to start with.
The piece only proves the machine works in all axis and can cut, it’s set to sub optimal feeds and speeds (cut fast and dirty to crank out as many machines as possible). For us, is not a “how pretty can we make this within .000001 tolerance test cut.
It is also used with a bit that is probably way past its prime and dull (internal cost savings) on a non-trammed and non-surfaced machine.
I would do the initial squaring and adjusting coplanarity, tramming and surfacing of the machine and then with your favourite CAD/CAM software, create a 3D model and output a g-code toolpath and mill something yourself. Then you can see if your machine is accurate.
That sounds reasonable enough, but without having that information up front, receiving a piece marked “q.c. approved” with some really obvious flaws caused a little immediate anxiety.
Maybe there’s a better way to communicate an appropriate expectation?
