Okay what’s goin’ on…. Aspire 10.5, Roughed out this horse face STL Model with 6mm EM, Finished with a 1.0mm Tapered Ball Nose. All four corners were supposed to get a chamfered edge, this chamfering was part of the model, not a separate chamfering toolpath.
So the left and bottom did not get chamfered, but the right and top did. The left side of the horses face also has a stair stepping effect, a slight stair stepping effect is also the case on the left and bottom chamfer.
So as you can see (overall) on photo one, the entire right side is perfect, but the left side, ehh, not so much… Is it my Tapered Ball Nose??
Watching, as I am also interested in what you find out. It almost looks like the rough out pass took out too much on the left vectors when the tool path was setup. i.e. offset setting. Looks nice though…Even the stair step looks kind of cool/artsy…
Kinda, but not the desired effect. Not sure about the roughing theory, it could be; but it looked like a normal rough to me, initially, and they weren’t deep gouges at the completion of roughing pass. This effect appeared as the tapered ball nose was traversing its finishing pass.
This is a head scratcher indeed, at least for me it is.
What did the preview look like in Aspire? I only have Pro, but I find mistakes in my tool paths all the time. Not always perfect, but it has saved me lots of wasted material in the past. Was this a file you purchased or something you designed yourself?
The preview looked good, and smooth. It was a purchased model, I did a lions head prior, from a different vendor, and it too had similar effects, not as drastic as this one however.
Just ran another slow mo preview and I don’t see any anomalies on the rendered horse’s mouth… It should have shown stair stepping on the left side of his mouth in the render, as a matter of fact; even the left and bottom edges appear to be rendering a chamfered edge. See screenshot:
Are the bottoms of the grooves parallel to the workpiece/table? The only thing I can think of at the moment is a left-right tramming issue. It would also be easy enough to throw up a square and check!
The ball nose end mill is a point (for all intents and purposes) and wouldn’t be affected. However the 6mm roughing pass would theoretically gouge on one side or the other if the router was canted.
Could this be the difference of a climb cut vs not? Curious if the step over combination when climbing is causing the chip load to be less optimal… Ie climb could mean you are not getting a complete cut.
I’m not exactly sure how Aspire works. On Fusion it is possible to have different model origins for different tools paths. So even though your machine/workpiece origin is physically in the same place for both cuts, your generated toolpaths aren’t sharing the same origin. Hence a shift between the two tools
