Rout Tool VERY slow in 1.187, better in newer versions?

[brdad]

I'm working on a dollhouse and using the carvewright to do a brick pattern on the walls (both sides). The sections are large, about a foot high and three feet long, which adds up to a litte over 2600 "bricks".

The horizontal lines it does real quick No problem there.
The short vertical lines are the issue. I started with separate lines, which carved quick on a small test piece but the software crashes on the full wall because there are too many items on it (I've had this happen on other projects as well). Anyway, my solution was to use the route tool, carving at .01" depth for .22" length, then 0" depth for .22 length, and repeat.

This is carving very well, but very slow. Designer predicts about 2 hours to carve, but the actual carve time is 4 hours and 45 minutes! Per side! And the reason is the routs. The bit goes down, carves for .22", which takes .25 second if that. Then the bit comes up and sits doing nothing for 4 seconds! 4 seconds X apx. 2600 vertical lines = 2.9 hours of wasted time per side, give or take. I have 5 of the 3 foot panels to do and six slightly smaller. What I expected would take 20 hours of carve time is going to end up taking close to 50 hours.

Assuming there is no better way to do this, I'm curious if the rout tool is any faster in the newer versions of designer? Doubt it but thought I'd ask.

[bergerud]

When I have done things like this before, I would plan it out so the bit stays down. Even if you have to go over some parts twice, make it one continuous path.

As to whether there is any speed difference in 1.187 or 3 I do not know.

[bergerud]

Something like this is what I was thinking.

[brdad]

Yeah, I considered that, but due to the pattern it seemed counter-productive to either go back and fill those missing spots, which would have given me the same issues I have now, or double back on every track, which now that I look at it probably would have been a lot faster than what I am doing.

Anyway, at this point I really don't dare change the process at this point as I have 2 sections done and the first side of the third running now.

[SteveNelson46]

I'm working on a dollhouse and using the carvewright to do a brick pattern on the walls (both sides). The sections are large, about a foot high and three feet long, which adds up to a litte over 2600 "bricks".

The horizontal lines it does real quick No problem there.
The short vertical lines are the issue. I started with separate lines, which carved quick on a small test piece but the software crashes on the full wall because there are too many items on it (I've had this happen on other projects as well). Anyway, my solution was to use the route tool, carving at .01" depth for .22" length, then 0" depth for .22 length, and repeat.

This is carving very well, but very slow. Designer predicts about 2 hours to carve, but the actual carve time is 4 hours and 45 minutes! Per side! And the reason is the routs. The bit goes down, carves for .22", which takes .25 second if that. Then the bit comes up and sits doing nothing for 4 seconds! 4 seconds X apx. 2600 vertical lines = 2.9 hours of wasted time per side, give or take. I have 5 of the 3 foot panels to do and six slightly smaller. What I expected would take 20 hours of carve time is going to end up taking close to 50 hours.

Assuming there is no better way to do this, I'm curious if the rout tool is any faster in the newer versions of designer? Doubt it but thought I'd ask.

In this example there are no overlapping lines which should result in less cutting time. I didn't do it in the Designer but it probably can be done using the "copy offset" tool. It might take a little longer though.

[bergerud]

It's all about how it is drawn and to eliminate as many overlapping lines as possible.

To me, it is all about using a single vector. Here are some reasons:

1. Jumping - the machine may jump all over the place in some crazy order if there are many separate vectors.

2. Time - the bit will have to rise up and down to start and stop each vector.

3. Tracking - with a single curve one can control the cutting to move back and forth in the y as the cutting moves slowly in the x.

[SteveNelson46]

To me, it is all about using a single vector. Here are some reasons:

1. Jumping - the machine may jump all over the place in some crazy order if there are many separate vectors.

2. Time - the bit will have to rise up and down to start and stop each vector.

3. Tracking - with a single curve one can control the cutting to move back and forth in the y as the cutting moves slowly in the x.

Dan,

I agree. Especially without the ability to specify the order of the cutting sequences. However, you will still have to backtrack over a lot of lines that could also result in tracking issues.

[bergerud]

As long as you do not go far before backtracking, I think it is ok. It is true, one should minimizie the backtracking (and direction changes) as much as possible. These types if cuts are a real challenge. Cool problem.

[brdad]

In this example there are no overlapping lines which should result in less cutting time. I didn't do it in the Designer but it probably can be done using the "copy offset" tool. It might take a little longer though.

Unfortunately I have 1.186 so I can't see the file or how you managed to avoid overlapping. I tried for an hour when designing but assumed it could not be done without bypassing at least a little bit. Therefore, I don't have copy offset either.

While I like the single vector idea, again this is a larger project. 53 horizontal lines, the routs I did double rows, down and up, and there is 48 of those. In theory they could all be hitched together, but with designer it's hard to keep that all locked into place if it were one line.

Another feasible possibility which I didn't attempt would be to vector the horizontal lines as I am doing, but convert the vertical routs into a pattern. It would likely carve that fairly fast since the cuts are shallow and consistent. And I am using the 1/16 carving bit anyway.

I'm just glad this is for the wife and I don't have to charge someone for machine time. But it's nice to hear and consider other options for the future just in case.

[bergerud]

I do not understand your original mpc. What are those vertical connected lines things which give the dash cuts? They show no bit but when I click on them, a bit appears. I am confused. How did you get the dashes? Is the upload corrupt? Seems strange to me!

[brdad]

Those were made using the rout tool. It might help to shut view construction lines off. If you click on the line then click the rout tool button you'll see the points.

[bergerud]

Thanks, I had forgotten all about that one! I do not think I have ever used it.

I wonder if it is the reason for the "extended" time lag between cutting.

[brdad]

I am guessing yes on that because on my initial test piece, all my vertical lines were individual lines. There was little to no lag between carving each individual line. As I stated in my first post, I decided to try the rout tool because the software crashes when it gets too many individual items on it. I'm not sure why it takes 4 seconds to decide how to carve the next section. Maybe the rout tool isn't designed to have so many ups and downs...

[bergerud]

How about some comparisons? One square foot of 1.5" by 0.5" bricks. The 1/16" ball nose at 0.050" depth.

Here is my single curve attempt. The short lines between the bricks do get a double cut. Upload says 19 minutes. I will cut it to test the actual time if anyone posts another method which comes close.

[brdad]

What quality are you using, normal?
I just made made up two tests and carved one.

The one I carved I used individual lines for both the horizontal and the vertical, as I hoped to do with my real project originally.The upload stated 16:02 minutes @ Normal, 17:52 @ best, and 20:52 @ optimal. Assuming you used normal, in one way I was surprised it's less than yours, but by double cutting you are carving an additional 90 inches of material. As for the end results, it took 29:43 (@normal) to complete. I was wrong in the fact there was no delay. It does pause, but it's closer to 2 seconds, not 4. I'm thinking the upload calculates carve time on feed rate and distance at that rate and does not consider what I am now calling "coffee breaks". With 180 vertical lines X 2 seconds each, that's 6 minutes added to the estimated time. There is also a shorter pause between the horizontal lines which adds to it. Also, unlike my 3 foot project which carves one horizontal line in one direction, then the next in the other, this shorter one took the time to move all the way back to the left end and cut each line from there..

The other test I made was converting the vertical lines to a pattern. That is stating 27:51 cut time. I'm not sure how it'll carve as even with the same bit at the same depth, the path looks different with a pattern than it does a vector line. I may try that after I am done with these 3 foot sections as I am curious how that estimated vs real time comes varies as well as the quality/consistency.

I am guessing your idea will carve fastest, but it would be quite an undertaking drawing 2700 or so bricks in one line, even with copy and paste. But I may try it when I start my shorter walls as I have to edit the file some anyway.

[bergerud]

Very interesting. I will have to cut mine this afternoon and see how long it really takes. I am thinking that the time estimate for one continuous curve might be more precise.

Yes, my time estimate was for normal. Not sure whether those settings actually make any real difference for vector operations.

[SteveNelson46]

Here it is in 1.187. You can see what I did by selecting each vector line one at a time and delete it. Then you can see there are no duplicated lines.

Brick panel size = 12" X 36"

Carve time: ~58 minutes on normal setting.

[brdad]

Here it is in 1.187. You can see what I did by selecting each vector line one at a time and delete it. Then you can see there are no duplicated lines.

Brick panel size = 12" X 36"

Carve time: ~58 minutes on normal setting.

Ah, thanks, I see now, I misunderstood. I thought you meant no overlaps using continuous vector. You are using all seperate vectors as I was trying to do in the beginning, but as my bricks are .75" wide and .22" tall, there are too many on the board (designer crashes).

I'd gamble from what I have experienced so far, and guessing at 2 seconds "coffee break" for each vector, this would likely take closer to 80 minutes to carve.

[SteveNelson46]

Here are the changes.

Panel Size: 36" X 12.1
Carve Time: ~1 Hour 19 Minutes

[DianMayfield]

Based on my experiences, the final run time is affected by the amount of lag the operator (me) has in answering prompts, jogging etc. The same file can have as much as a 10 minute variation. (I paused one carve for 3 hrs while I went to dinner and that was reflected in the run time).

[brdad]

Based on my experiences, the final run time is affected by the amount of lag the operator (me) has in answering prompts, jogging etc. The same file can have as much as a 10 minute variation. (I paused one carve for 3 hrs while I went to dinner and that was reflected in the run time).

This particular project is one bit, so that lessens that issue. And 10 minutes is generally no big deal, but 2.75 hours added onto a 2 hour project is quite undesirable!

[brdad]

Here are the changes.

Panel Size: 36" X 12.1
Carve Time: ~1 Hour 19 Minutes

Interesting. So, again adding time for coffee breaks, which adds up to about 1:15, total of 2:34, that should carve faster than what I am doing.

Even more interesting is that I am able to open, save, and re-open that file without designer crashing.

[bergerud]

Well I just ran the square foot of bricks. It was supposed to take 19 minutes but it actually took 26 minutes. A little pause at each corner must add up to the difference.

I still like the single vector idea, even if the time savings is not so great. It cut like a carving carves. Slowly proceeding forward in the x as the y goes back and forth. I like to see each section get completed as the board moves slowly through as opposed having the board and truck jumping around.

[SteveNelson46]

I fixed my previous file. I had forgotten to offset every other row.

[brdad]

Well I just ran the square foot of bricks. It was supposed to take 19 minutes but it actually took 26 minutes. A little pause at each corner must add up to the difference.

I still like the single vector idea, even if the time savings is not so great. It cut like a carving carves. Slowly proceeding forward in the x as the y goes back and forth. I like to see each section get completed as the board moves slowly through as opposed having the board and truck jumping around.

I tend to agree, for speed minimizing the pauses makes a big difference, and it appears all or most objects create a pause afterward. Added bonus is a little less wear on the machine. The downside of a single vector is it makes it a little harder to make adjustments (which might be less hassle with the newer software).

I think on my next sections I am going to try a combination. I will try the horizontal lines individually and drop down and back up as I go to create the vertical lines. So one vector effectively does the upper lines of one row of bricks. That is backwards as you suggest, but from my calculation it results in similar X movement overall (288" vs. 281"). It will take a break at each row, but 54 rows is less than 2 minutes added time IF the pause is 2 seconds.

We shall see, it can't be any worse than using the rout tool. I'm on my last large piece, so I'll be trying that tomorrow.

[brdad]

Well, I'm back to doing things the way I started.

Trying the horizontal lines individually was a fail. Instead of routing down to the end, then routing back up, the machine decided to do all the routs from left to right. This resulted in a tracking innacuracy that made every row about 1/16" offset to the right compared to the one before. Not really surprising on a 3 foot long board.

So I decided to hich all those horizontal individual lines together. Despite being a few years old I think my computer is fairly capable, but designer just wanted no part of that. It crashed a few times, and after I finally suceeded, I ended up with many dimensional vertex errors so I gave that up.

So, starting from scratch I decided to try and make individual vertical rows, like bergerud's but broken up into vertical sections. That seemed to work without crashing Designer, so I connected them together as one line and that seemed ok as well. I was going to try a section like this, but on upload it calculated a carve time of 3:44 for the individual vertical rows and 3:42 for all one vector. While either of these methods may work, it's clear it really won't save a lot of time. I predict an actually carve time of 4 hours on thse slightly shorter walls, so even if the other methods were calculated accurately we're only talking 15 minutes. I'm thinking I'm safer sticking with what I know works. Sometimes we just have to accept there is no "best" way to do something.

[cestout]

Too b ad you don't have version 3. You could make the vertical lines into a pattern and do the horizontal lines as vector. Horizontal tracking would not be a problem that way.
Clint

[brdad]

Too b ad you don't have version 3. You could make the vertical lines into a pattern and do the horizontal lines as vector. Horizontal tracking would not be a problem that way.
Clint

You can make vectors into a pattern in 1.187 as well, and I thought about doing that. I posted a sample in post #15 above, but didn't test it, mainly because I feared there would be a difference in depth or some other issues going that route. On the preview window it should up different, despite being the same bit and the same depth, not that that is an idication it'd carve different.

[SteveNelson46]

In all of the years that I have had a Carvewright I have never successfully used the rout tool. It's primarily used to rout a perimeter around the outside edge of a board and routing an edge on the router table is much faster and cleaner with fewer problems. I think what you really need to do is to draw your vectors, assign a bit and set a depth. Just about any bit can be assigned to any depth. You can even use the profile tool to get different profiles along the vector or at each end but the rout tool will give you nothing but problems and most experienced users don't use it. Just passing along my own experiences..

[bergerud]

Actually, the route tool is something else altogether. It is the strangest tool that no one ever uses. You can assign different bits to different pieces of a vector. Not the friendliest tool either.

[brdad]

Understood, but the rout tool is functioning perfectly (abeit slow) the way I have it at the moment, so as long as I can do these 6 more sections I'll be done with it. Anything else I need to do with this design will be much smaller so more traditional methods can be used.

I find it sad so much of the software (like the rout tool) is sub-par in many cases.

[brdad]

Actually, the route tool is something else altogether. It is the strangest tool that no one ever uses. You can assign different bits to different pieces of a vector. Not the friendliest tool either.

Agreed, not so friendly, but it actually could be a great tool to make "dashes" with, which the vertical lines of the brick pattern are. One straight vector, so it's all lined up. It was just a bear to get all of those sections exactly .222" and get the bit assigned to the correct section. At least once I had one done correctly, the copy and pasting of the others went easy. If only it didn't stall for 4 seconds on every dash!

[bergerud]

If only it didn't stall for 4 seconds on every dash!

I bet that is because the software has a complicated subroutine to go through. It could need the user to change bits! It would have to check whether the bit is used elsewhere and so on....

[SteveNelson46]

I had the Rout Tool and the Edge Route confused. The Route Tool can be useful in some situations but most of the time I just draw separate vectors and assign different bits to each vector. In most cases I think there is a little more transitional control that way.

[cestout]

My opinion: the edge rout tool, rout tool, and the cut to length are all un-necessary for most of us.
Clint

[brdad]

I still have a lot to do, but the walls came out pretty well overall. Lot of carving hours though! I even carved some spiral stair treads.

[bergerud]

Awesome dollhouse. Quite a project.