Just might be the case. I was cutting 1/2" on a 3/4" carrier. It did all of the measurements without asking.
Printable View
Hi Floyd,
Remind me (and I'll try to remind you/us too) to ask Chris about this at the Conference. We would expect to always be able to choose "Project" thickness regardless of total sled+actual board thickness. If that is not the case now, perhaps a software update/fix can be put on the programmers' list.
Michael, if the board + sled is greater than the capability of the machine, e.g. 1/2" + 3/4" = 1-1/4", the answer must always be "Project", so there's no need to ask the question.
For I do not recall how long it has been.
You and I Michael have talked about this. Were it no long ask Board or Project.
I have this pass week ran just a boaed project and a project on a jig/sled and never didi it ask me about board or project.
I ran a carving last night and it ended up with not tabs. I used the 3/8" cut out bit.
I am bringing the problems down to the conference for some answers. Not good, cut outs with no taps.............
He used the 3/16" Cutting Bit (i.e, the End Mill) for the Cut Path, but that is not the problem. It is a two-sided project with vectors only for a pocket on the backside and he used the same 3/16" Cutting Bit assigned to those vectors.
When the board is flipped to the Front and the Cut Path is performed, the software fails to recognize the vector/pocket and the Cut Path doesn't make allowance for the material already removed from the Back. The result is that there are no Tabs left.
I've already discussed this with LHR and we have a theory...if a bit is assigned for a backside pocket that is NOT labled internally in the software as a "Carving Bit" then the software becomes "unaware" of material removal on the Back. A tutorial I wrote years ago demonstrated how a simple picture frame with a pocket on the backside will still allow for Tabs when the Cut Path is run on the Frontside. However, this was using a Carving Bit for the back pocket, so it works like a charm.
I'll be talking with the programmers at the Conference regarding "our theory" about the bit labeling affecting the "backside carve awareness" and whether there is a possible solution forthcoming.
DickB,
It was a 3/16" cutting bit as Michael stated. I typed in the incorrect size.
Thank you, Michael