Missing lead out at 2 Axis Pocket

BobCAD-CAM Software Discussions
#1

Hi,

If only lines are used to mill a pocket, how can a finish be done with a clean Lead Out?

My way:

  • First Operation: 2 Axis Pocket for Roughing with Side+Bottom Allowance 0.5 to 1mm.
    image
  • Second Operation: 2 Axis Pocket for finish with new feature to start quite close to the remaining stock
    image

Problem: 2 Axis Pocket just has Lead Entry, but no Lead Out.
Using Rest Roughing would do the same finish job, but the Entry goes down the whole deepness:
image
For this it would be nice to be able to set a top value here as well.

For a clean finish I am missing a Lead Out, short traveling inside along a curve and simultaneously lift the cutter not to scratch the bottom.

Or have I overlooked something?

Regards, Harald

#2

For pocketing, I always finish the bottom and sides in separate operations staying .005 away. So if I’m finishing the sides, I will stay .005 away from the bottom. This way you don’t need a lead out for the bottom, and you can use 2d contour for the sides with a lead in/out.

#3

Hi,

indeed, that makes sure a clean job. But the tasks get this to work are still exhausting and error-prone. With a lead-out, you don’t have to worry.

In the meantime I will follow your workaround :wink: Thx.

Bye, Harald

1 Like
#4

Hi Harald,

To your question

Nope, there is no ramp lead out option for pocketing. It would be nice to have that, so to eliminate endmill circles in the finish.

In situations where I have 1 or 2 pockets I will use the Move in the Toolpath Editor. Just give the rapid out line a X.002, Y-.01 and Z.002, see example below. This adds a little ramp before exiting. Fine for 1 or 2 pockets, but if you have multiple pockets, it can be a problem with accidently picking some wrong toolpath and not catching it. Also you would need to check the direction of the toolpath so to create a ramp that is tangential.

Screenshot 2021-05-28 102538
Screenshot 2021-05-28 102538915×813 69.5 KB

Maybe this is should be in Feature Request.

David.

#5

@avocamfg2006
I also thought about doing it with Toolpath Editor. Basically, this tool is great. At the same time, I’ve a lot respect of it. All you do or have to do separately is a mousetrap. Especial if you are on the road to get the perfect toolpath you must write a note for each such hand written task and or dependencies you have done. E.g. changing the deepness of a previous operation has the consequence to change all associated dependencies as well. And don’t you dare forget one…

As you said: Feature Request.

Bye, Harald

1 Like
#6

i usually just run it as a pocket,pocket,profile where my first pocket routine is within .008 in of finish size with a .005 in on the depth…second pocket is to size on the perimeter and finishes depth…the profile is the same…just a spring cut really with the lead in/lead out

1 Like
#7

@Bigman
yes, this a way (or some kind of other approach) we all have to do it. Instead of just one operation we need always 3 of them and have keep in mind to synchronize them if we are going to change something (e.g. Deepness, Top, …)

It was my dream there is the not know feature someone in the pocket operation I’ve overseen. But I’m sure, BC already has an eye on this :wink:

Regards, Harald

2 Likes