Stacking tool paths and using "Inset" for finish pass

[heftyh]

I am trying to do a standard machining technique to get a smooth finish pass.
- Cut path "A" is a step cut with a max pass depth of 0.070". Material is 3/8" polycarbonate. Inset = 0.000"
- For cut path "B", I am copying and pasting cut path "A" on top of itself (with a new name). Then I turn OFF max pass depth so it cuts all the way through. I also set Inset = 0.015" to try and get a nice skim cut that gives a fine edge.
Here is the problem: when I do this, the machine cuts "B" first even though it is second in the carvings list. So, I did it again but first changed the order of the cut paths in the carving list. Same thing happended.
Dos anyone know how to take control of the order of the cut paths so I can do the step cuts first and then come back with the finish pass?
Thanks,
John

[fwharris]

John,

What appears in the carving list has nothing to do with the order of cut. I do not have a good answer for the correct way to set up what you are doing other than 2 different mpc files. first one with your A cut pass and the second with your B..

[Carl H]

Would it be possible to set up one of the cutpaths on the reverse side of the board. When the board asks for it to be flipped, Don't flip it. just set it to do the cut. I am not sure if the CW carves the rear of the board first or last I havent done any two sided carves yet, but it may be worth a try.

[heftyh]

FW,
I was woried that creating and running 2 different files would create an offset between the 2 cuts (with all the rehoming and measuring). I am only skimming 0.015 so it is a very small cut. If we can figure out a way to make this happen, it will give you beautiful finishes on edges. The most recent ones I have done using an Onsrud O flute 1/8" bit give an edge almost equal to a mill. So- I guess this will be a head scratcher for a while. I will continue to experiment but suggestions will be very welcome.
I know the machine picks its own sequence for carving but I think it would be a nice feature to add this functionalilty for cut paths. As an interesting side note- specifying the tabs the same way on the 2 cut paths caused them to land in the exact same location so at least that worked as I hoped it would.
Thanks, John

[fwharris]

John,

That would be one concern of not lining up properly for the different carves. Maybe Connie can get one of the engineers to chime in here and share their knowledge with us on if it is possible to set up the cut paths in the order we want them to cut.

Carl,

Yes another way of possibly doing this. The machine will do the back side carve first and then ask for you to flip the board to the front....

[dltccf]

I seem to remember something about cut paths being ordered inside to outside, but can't be sure. Reviewing the last carving I did, It did cut the two inside paths before it cut the outside one.

[heftyh]

Carl/ FW,
For the 2 sided cut concept; would this work for an asymetrical pattern? Also, how would it treat the tabs? I've never done this before or even thought about it. Will look for some tutorials tomorrow. I'm having trouble imagining how the machine would treat the tabs or if they would still line up with each other.
Thanks, John

[bergerud]

FW,
I was woried that creating and running 2 different files would create an offset between the 2 cuts (with all the rehoming and measuring). I am only skimming 0.015 so it is a very small cut. If we can figure out a way to make this happen, it will give you beautiful finishes on edges. The most recent ones I have done using an Onsrud O flute 1/8" bit give an edge almost equal to a mill. So- I guess this will be a head scratcher for a while. I will continue to experiment but suggestions will be very welcome.
Thanks, John

If you do not lift the head between running project files, the machine will not remeasure the board. The two project file suggestion of Floyd should work.

Another thought might be to make the multiple passes by assigning the bit to the path and also do a cut path. Do the multiple bit passes only to the depth of the tabs which will be left later with the cut path. The machine always does bit paths before cut paths. When you do the cut path to full depth, it will only have to cut out the material that is left between the tabs. A slight offset and you get the clean up.

[cestout]

Even without a second path a little closer, if you just run the project a second time without moving anything you should get a smoother cut.
Clint

[mtylerfl]

If you do not lift the head between running project files, the machine will not remeasure the board. The two project file suggestion of Floyd should work.

If true, this is definitely something I did not know. It defies my logic...seems like the machine would always remeasure when selecting a different project, regardless of leaving the board captive under the head...but, I have ZERO first-hand knowledge of this and have not tried it (never had a reason to.) I know you have really put the machine through a lot of experiments and tests, so I am guessing you HAVE done this before and know this to be the behaviour. Question...does the machine behave this way ONLY if the second project selected has the same board dimensions? This has me really curious.



Another thought might be to make the multiple passes by assigning the bit to the path and also do a cut path. Do the multiple bit passes only to the depth of the tabs which will be left later with the cut path. The machine always does bit paths before cut paths. When you do the cut path to full depth, it will only have to cut out the material that is left between the tabs. A slight offset and you get the clean up.

The issue of a "final cleanup pass" around cutouts has come up many times over the years. The current generation of the software has no direct settings for that level of control on a Cut Path. However, the procedure you outlined above is very clever and sounds reasonable to me. I'll bet that method will work like a champ!

I'm confident the "next generation" software will have a lot more control over many things, including toolpaths. In the meantime, I am constantly impressed by the creative thinking so many users have come up with to work within the features of the current software.

[bergerud]

If true, this is definitely something I did not know.

It is true. Here is an example (I had to retest to make sure I was right!) There is a hole and in a small circle; both from separate project files. The machine did the hole and then, without remeasuring the board, did the circle. I do not think the board sizes even have to be the same. You do have to answer all the same questions again but they all come at once. If you abort a project, however, all is lost. Some other things are also remembered. If you jog to touch on the first carve, it will repeat the same touch without asking.

An experiment I have been planning is to try involves removing the board and flipping it over without the machine knowing. This would be a way to increase the acuracy of the double sided carve.

[badbert]

This brings us back to the sled option. If you used a sled and the machine would allow you to jog to the right. You could change the board in the sled without having to unload the sled from the machine every time.

[bergerud]

You can simply move the carriage out of the way by hand and it will return by itself later. I also have my x gears exposed so I can also manually move the x direction. I have done the remove the board from the sled trick for small boards which come out between the rollers. I have not tried larger boards where one might have to hold the rollers up.

[mtylerfl]

It is true. Here is an example (I had to retest to make sure I was right!) There is a hole and in a small circle; both from separate project files. The machine did the hole and then, without remeasuring the board, did the circle. I do not think the board sizes even have to be the same. You do have to answer all the same questions again but they all come at once. If you abort a project, however, all is lost. Some other things are also remembered. If you jog to touch on the first carve, it will repeat the same touch without asking.

An experiment I have been planning is to try involves removing the board and flipping it over without the machine knowing. This would be a way to increase the acuracy of the double sided carve.

Thank you so much for the additional details and the test results that prove the behaviour. Very interesting! I got a new wrinkle in my brain today!

[heftyh]

OK. I followed bergerud's suggestion of first doing a Route followed by a Cut Path.
- As he suggested, I did the Route at a depth of the material minus the tab that would be on the Cut path. The Route was stepped in 0.1" increments with no offset. This was supposed to be the "rough" cut.
- The program then ran the Cut Path, 1 pass at the depth of the material and I had 3 tabs (1/16") to hold the material. I had an inset of 0.015" since this was supposed to be the "finish" pass to give a nice smooth edge.
- The machine ran everything as programmed correctly HOWEVER, the cut quality is poor on the Cut Path and smooth on the Route! As the machine ran, I was looking at the bit & board with a light and I could see the axis's "stairstep" to make a jagged edge even though it was barely cutting any material. When it ran the Route, you could not see the stairstepping even though it was hogging out almost all of the material. Very confusing.
I have attached a picture of the results and the carve file. The circle is ~ 1 inch diameter.
Pardon my lack of understanding certain items but I just use the machine to make one type of cut patterns so I don't experiment much. It seems as if the Cut Path is defining a much cruder tool path vs. the Route. I had the cut quality set to Optimal for all of my testing over the last couple of days.
Can anyone explain this or confirm they have had the same results? Any workarounds to get the smooth cutting with the Cut Path or am I doing something wrong?
Thanks, John

[bergerud]

One thing I noticed is that the second cut path circle also has the same route applied to it as the first circle. You copied and pasted the circle and the bit path data came along. I deleted the bit from the second circle and will give it a try.

[bergerud]

It seemed to work ok for me. Not as smooth as one might like. I had no steping on the 0.1 passes to clean up but the clean up pass was a single pass.

[heftyh]

bergerud,
I deleted the bit path selection from the Cut Path as you found. I ran the corrected file tonight and the results were identical. I am out of time tonight but I think what is happening is that the full depth "skim cut" of 0.015" plus the lower level full cut where the tabs are located is just too much resistance for the x/y drive and it is making a stairstep while fighting through the polycarbonate. Either that or the Route vs. Cut Path is calculating the movement different. However, when looking at your pictures, the inside and outside cuts look identical. I will run a series of tests starting tomorrow night and post results. Thanks, John

[heftyh]

OK- sorry for the delay but was able to test more today without interuptions.
I did an experiment by running the attached file "Bit Path Steps".
I then renamed the file "Cut Path Steps" and deleted the bit selection and defined a Cut Path with 3 tabs.
The max pass depth of cut was the same on both programs: 0.070". The bit is new and cuts without any melting at the max pass depth set.
When the machine ran the "Bit Path Step" program, the sled and gantry movement was smooth. When the machine ran the "Cut Path Steps", there was a lot of jerking around of the sled and gantry. Stuttering would be a good way to describe it. I did this several times and the results were repeatable.
The attached picture shows the rough cut of the Cut Path and the smooth cut of the Route.
One interesting note is that when looking closely at the Cut Path tool marks, you can see that when the bit was indexing down on the next pass, the cut landed in the exact same place!

I do not remember having this issue before; I have Cut Path pieces from a year + ago that are nowhere near this bad. I just upgraded my firmware to 1.186, Build 10507.
Bergerud/ Anybody, Have you noticed any difference in the edge quality between a Cut Path and Route like I am?
My first guess is that the Cut Path instruction set is calculating the tool & sled indexing different than the Route. Or- it could be I am overlooking something- again.
Thanks, John

[bergerud]

I think you may be right. I have been doing a lot of cutting lately and the bit path does seem to be a smoother motion than the cut path. The cut path is jerky like the y has to wait for the x to catch up and then the y lurches. I do not remember this lurching before either. Maybe there is a problem with the designer upgrade. I was thinking that it was time to take my x belt system apart and clean it up, but now I wonder.

[heftyh]

Yes- the description you just mentioned is exactly what I see also. I went back and looked at my old cutouts and they have an edge closer to a Route. So, it appears as if something happended to the sofware.
I jumped from 1.134 straight to 1.186 so I have no way to go back.
Does anyone have a "hotline" to someone at Carvewright? Or- has anyone figured this out already and jumped back to older firmware?
Thanks, John

[bergerud]

I tried 1.184 firmware and it was the same. I cannot go back any further than that.

[SteveJ]

It is good to hear someone else is having cut path stepping. I would think it convenient if the cut path depth steps were offset by the inset value and the final cut was on the mark. We could get a smoother finish cut without separate paths. I thought it was my bearings but after replacement and maintenance, the cut-out stepping continued. I also wish I could see where the tabs were going to come out and have the ability to move them to where I want them. Sometimes they come out in a place that makes cleaning them up harder. I hope that a software fix is the answer!

[heftyh]

OK, I have filled out the online form and asked for software support on the issue. I referred them to this post for more details of what we are seeing so this would be a good time for any additional info to be added. If I get any feedback that they do not post in this thread, I will add it.
Since I use the machine for Cut Paths, and now they are so rough, it is basically unusable. I have added an additional picture. "Route" is on the left, "Cut Path" is on the right.
I would still like to know if someone has a software version that does not have this issue that could be sent or posted. Thanks, John

[bergerud]

Confirmed. I just booted on an old hard drive and used version 1.179. Created a circle cut path and with the 1.179 firmware it cut smooth as silk.

So some version between 1.179 and 1.183 has changed the code which calculates x position.

Nice catch heftyh, I thought it was my machine.

[henry1]

I also thought it was my machine great catch

[mtylerfl]

This got me curious and I have not noticed any difference in Cut Path quality, so I went out to the workshop and looked at a few scraps leftover from some recent Projects of the Month. I do not see the 'chattering' on any of the cutouts. I do see the 'watermarks' from using Max. Pass setting of 0.3" (which is why I prefer full-depth cutouts whenever practical), but not the scalloped edges like what you showed.

One thing I would like to see as an option for Cut Paths is a spiral ramp feature. I use that all the time on my ShopBot. The way it works is the bit starts the cutout by gradually ramping into the cut (just like the CarveWright does at the start of a cutout) but it continues to gradually ramp down in depth as the bit travels around the cutout until it completes the full depth of the cut. This method results in little to no visible 'watermarking' on the board edge, and is gentle on the bit.

So, it's a mystery why some of you are getting the scalloped edges. I'm not aware of any software change that would cause this, but perhaps LHR can comment and shed some more light on this.

EDIT: Are you all using the CarveTight Chuck?...or something else? Bit runout would cause those scalloped issues. But, in view of Bergerud's test, that's probably not it...I guess.

[bergerud]

Here is the test. The mpc is simply a circle cut out. The project was loaded from Designer 1.186 to one of two cards. One card has firmware 1.179 and the other has firmware 1.186.

http://youtu.be/oL1htq-ODNU

http://youtu.be/a4vXkhS_s7I


As a temporary fix heftyh, here is the 1.179 control firmware. If you unzip it and put it in the carvewright program folder, you can choose to upload it onto your card in the flash manager.

[SteveJ]

Here is the test. The mpc is simply a circle cut out. The project was loaded from Designer 1.186 to one of two cards. One card has firmware 1.179 and the other has firmware 1.186.

http://youtu.be/oL1htq-ODNU

http://youtu.be/a4vXkhS_s7I


As a temporary fix heftyh, here is the 1.179 control firmware. If you unzip it and put it in the carvewright program folder, you can choose to upload it onto your card in the flash manager.


Thank you for the video. It shows the jerking my machine has been experiencing. I broke 4 1/8 cutout bits and a 3/16 last year. I have never broken them in the 2+ years previous. I hope it is an issue that can be addressed soon. Maybe I will roll back version to 1.179 on the next carve to see what happens. Thanks again!

FYI - I have carve tights on both machines....

[heftyh]

Bergerud, I installed 1.179 on the machine and confirmed that it was there by checking the Options menu. However, when I ran the file again, it did the same thing- rough cut path. The cut path was also jerky just like in your video of the 1.186 firmware. Not sure if I did something wrong but I am going to reformat the card and try again. The fact that it works on yours means I do not have something right. This is first time I have only tried to change just the firmware.
Question: Did you just change the firmware on your machine or did you jump back to Designer 1.179? I think the tool path math would be in Designer since it is writing the code going to the card. If this is the case, can you post Designer 1.179?

Michael T- I installed the Rock Chuck many years ago. The drivetrain is stable as shown in by the smooth "Route" in my picture. Thanks, John

[bergerud]

Ok, that is strange. Did you upload the project after you changed the firmware or did you just change the firmware?

I just used the firmware from 1.179. I used Designer 1.186 to upload the project.

Edit: I originally used both Designer 1.179 and its firmware but I got the same result just using the firmware.

[DickB]

It defies my logic...seems like the machine would always remeasure when selecting a different project, regardless of leaving the board captive under the head...

Question...does the machine behave this way ONLY if the second project selected has the same board dimensions? This has me really curious.

This makes sense to me. Regardless of project size, whether the project fits on the board, is too big, or is too small, the board needs to first be measured. Once measured, and as long as the head is not elevated, the machine can know that the same size board is in place. No need to measure the board again; it has already been measured. Changing projects doesn't change the physical board in the machine.

[Nick68]

I use this two files for the same board/project technique when carving corian.
First file is an out line of the pattern to be carved using the 3/16 cut bit.
The second file is for the actual carving and cut out.
Now the only time I use this technique is when I am using .500 stock corian and I set the carving depth at .510.
The benefits of this technique;
While carving the pattern it is also cutting the pattern out at the same time.
The machine does not have to plunge through .510 on every pass.
And the 1/8 cut bit does not have to cut through all that corian.

[heftyh]

I used Designer 1.186 to create a new file so I could move the area to be cut. At the same time, I selected the firmware 1.176 that you posted. They both went to the machine; I verified by checking in "Options". Out of time tonight but will try again tomorrow. Thanks.

[mtylerfl]

I used Designer 1.186 to create a new file so I could move the area to be cut. At the same time, I selected the firmware 1.176 that you posted. They both went to the machine; I verified by checking in "Options". Out of time tonight but will try again tomorrow. Thanks.

We're very interested to know the results!

[Capt Bruce]

Like many of you here, I thought the jumping motion during cut-outs was just my C machine and it was time to clean the belts and rails again. Definite stair steps and little scallops. I'm glad this has come to light and others are confirming the symptoms even if not yet the cause, before I did anything counterproductive .

It really did make a mess of the edges on todays project and cost me an extra 1 1/2 hrs of edge grinding and sanding to clean it all up.

58684 58685 These were taken after the clean up work was done.

I really hope the team in Houston can track down and fix this problem because I'd hate to have to go back to cutting out everything on my scrollsaw.

[heftyh]

OK- I did the entire test again:
- I reformatted the memory card.
- Made a new series of Cut Paths & Routes in Designer 1.186
- Moved the file to the memory card but selected firmware 1.179 (supplied by bergerud) along with it
- Verified on the Options menu that it was running v 1.179
- Ran the file and the Cut Paths were rough and jerky while cutting. The Routes were smooth.

Bergerud, In your post below, are you saying that you created the project in Designer 1.179 and Designer 1.186? Can't tell if you made the file again using Designer 1.186 and then ran it using firmware 1.179. If your project was made with Designer 1.179, then the bug must be in Designer 1.186.
- I requested from Carveright to get a copy of Designer 1.179 (phone call and email today). Have not heard back yet.
- Does anyone have Designer 1.179 they can email?
Thanks, John

Ok, that is strange. Did you upload the project after you changed the firmware or did you just change the firmware?

I just used the firmware from 1.179. I used Designer 1.186 to upload the project.

Edit: I originally used both Designer 1.179 and its firmware but I got the same result just using the firmware.

[henry1]

I have a copy what your email addy

[bergerud]

In my test, I made a simple circle cut path in designer 1.186. I the uploaded it to two cards. One card had firmware 1.179 and the other card had firmware 1.186. As you saw, the 1.179 was smooth and the 1.186 was jerky. (My first test used Designer 1.179 and its 1.179 firmware and that was also smooth.)

There must be other variables here. MT said his was smooth while others say theirs are jerky. I am running Windows XP Pro and my machine is a B. I do not know what other variables there could be. (I also have all of the add on software.)

I must say, though, that my test does show that the jerking is related to software and not hardware. Unfortunate that it appears so complicated. It might be hard find the problem. Even if you do run Designer 1.179, it might still be jerky.

I hope we hear from LHR about this.

[henry1]

OK- I did the entire test again:
- I reformatted the memory card.
- Made a new series of Cut Paths & Routes in Designer 1.186
- Moved the file to the memory card but selected firmware 1.179 (supplied by bergerud) along with it
- Verified on the Options menu that it was running v 1.179
- Ran the file and the Cut Paths were rough and jerky while cutting. The Routes were smooth.

Bergerud, In your post below, are you saying that you created the project in Designer 1.179 and Designer 1.186? Can't tell if you made the file again using Designer 1.186 and then ran it using firmware 1.179. If your project was made with Designer 1.179, then the bug must be in Designer 1.186.
- I requested from Carveright to get a copy of Designer 1.179 (phone call and email today). Have not heard back yet.
- Does anyone have Designer 1.179 they can email?
Thanks, John
Ok, that is strange. Did you upload the project after you changed the firmware or did you just change the firmware?

I just used the firmware from 1.179. I used Designer 1.186 to upload the project.

Edit: I originally used both Designer 1.179 and its firmware but I got the same result just using the firmware.


guest you don't want it that bad lol

[bergerud]

Wait a minute, I used Designer 1.179 to load the firmware. Ok, I just reformatted the card and loaded the 1.179 firmware using 1.186. It is now jerky!

All is well, we do not disagree. Let me restate what I think I now know. Use designer 1.179 to load 1.179 firmware onto the card and smooth. This seems to indicate that the software problem is in the loading of the firmware, not the firmware itself. (Should I try and use Designer 1.179 to load the 1.186 firmware?)

Anyway, I think your cut outs will be smooth with Designer 1.179.

[bergerud]

I have done some more tests and let me say first that I was not able to repeat the smooth cut from 1.186 in any way I tried. It did not matter which firmware was loaded by which version - jerky. I am at loss to explain how I thought I got smooth cuts from 1.186 with 1.179 firmware. The simplest explanation is that I made some kind of mistake. Sorry heftyh. What I can report is that I get smooth cuts from Designer 1.179 using 1.179 firmware (or 1.186 firmware). If you remove Designer 1.186 and install 1.179, I believe you will get back to smooth cuts.

http://www.carvewright.com/assets/downloads/designer_1_179.exe

[heftyh]

Bergerud- OK- I feel better that our tests match now; was really confused till your last 2 posts. This is good since I think we can all get running again.
Henry1- sorry for the delay but I ran the Carveright tests when I hit the shop tonight and had to switch to production mode. Just back on the PC now.
I just noticed that Bergerud posted a link to 1.179; see the bottom of his last post. Thank you! I will test Tuesday night and report what happens on my "A" machine.
Thanks, John

[DickB]

Can I revert to an earlier Designer and load projects created with a later one? My current is 1.186 and the previous version I used is 1.180 - I wonder how it behaves. I suppose I will have to test it.

[bergerud]

I am sure that if you used any of the new features (the add-ons) you will be in trouble. I tried to carve my shoe body created in 1.186 with 1.179 firmware and got errors at the machine. It was a no go.

I'll bet 1.180 is probability as good as 1.179.

[DickB]

Well I just tried and no joy - I could not load a 1.186 project with 1.180 even though it did not use any new features. I am stuck. We need to hear from LHR on this topic.

[mtylerfl]

Well I just tried and no joy - I could not load a 1.186 project with 1.180 even though it did not use any new features. I am stuck. We need to hear from LHR on this topic.

You cannot load projects into Designer if it's an older version than it was created with. Same with Vectric software too...you can load old projects into newer software, but you can't open projects created in a current software version with an older version.

[bergerud]

You cannot load projects into Designer if it's an older version than it was created with. Same with Vectric software too...you can load old projects into newer software, but you can't open projects created in a current software version with an older version.

Are you sure that is always been true? I am sure I have had different versions of the software at home and at the office and been able to open my files on either one. (I am sure it must true now with all of the changes made lately.)

[liquidguitars]

Yes old projects load into newer software builds, however depending on the rev, new MPCs do not.

[DickB]

You cannot load projects into Designer if it's an older version than it was created with. Same with Vectric software too...you can load old projects into newer software, but you can't open projects created in a current software version with an older version.
Not unexpected, but this puts many of us in a bind. I'm getting the rough cut on my projects, but I can't go back to a version of software that appears to work better.

Does this rough cut issue need to be placed on the bug list to get attention? I'd like some positive feedback that LHR is investigating this, 'cause I've got problems.

[mtylerfl]

Are you sure that is always been true? I am sure I have had different versions of the software at home and at the office and been able to open my files on either one. (I am sure it must true now with all of the changes made lately.)

As far as I recall, this has always been true. Perhaps there was a version(s) with just minor bug fixes that allowed for loading "newer" version projects into a prior version, but that would be the exception to the rule.


...
Does this rough cut issue need to be placed on the bug list to get attention? I'd like some positive feedback that LHR is investigating this, 'cause I've got problems.

I don't think I'm speaking too much out of school when I tell you, yes, they are trying to duplicate your problem since yesterday.

[heftyh]

OK- I performed more tests tonight:
- uninstalled Designer 1.186
- installed Designer 1.179
- created Circle Cut Path, Square Cut Path, Spline, and drilled a hole
- all cut smooth with 1.179 !
The rough & jerky Cut Path problem occurs somewhere after 1.179.
I still have not received an acknowledgment of this issue so one of you with inside contacts may want to follow up.
Thanks for all the help- especially bergerud. I will now go back to the original topic of this post: trying to do a clean up pass although at this point I don't expect much of an improvement. I think just stepping the bit down in the smallest increment will give the best result but I will experiment. Thanks, John

[DickB]

I almost always step cutouts in .25 increments, with either the 1/8" cutting bit or the 3/16" cutting bit. On some hardwoods like hard maple and oak, faint lines are visible at .25" depths, but the cuts have been smooth. The lines typically sand out with "normal" sanding. I personally don't see how smaller increments would help. But I like your idea of a full-depth cleanup pass. I think what I will try is an initial vector cut to near-full depth, in .25 increments, using a negative offset like -0.80", leaving 0.017" for the final cut. Then a final full-depth cut using cutout and tabs. This could be done in just one project, as vector cuts should cut first, and cutouts are done last as far as I know and have observed.

Hmm - one could also do the initial offset cut with the stronger 3/16" bit, then finish with the 1/8" bit for better detail.

[bergerud]

Another reason for doing a bit path followed by cut path is in the case of a double sided carve where the cut path tabs default to full height because the cut path cuts into a carve region on the other side. This has plagued me time and time again. With this method at least the tabs get cut down even though they remain wide. I will do this on the dust shoe body carve when they get the jerky cut path fixed. I like the idea of a clean up pass too.

[DickB]

Any word from LHR on this problem?