Is 2.0 worth the price?

[SteveEJ]

Thanks Brandon.

Merry Christmas all!

[Woodpecker]

A different point of view. If the cost of learning is high? What is the cost of ignorance?
I certainly don't like school. I don't like to spend money. I can't keep up with technology, so to spend a few dollars on
a hobby and the pleasure of learning. Us old guys must just enjoy what we can afford. This teaches you new ideas, math, carving,
art and makes new friends. Like a credit card commercial "PRICELESS!"
Woodpecker

[bergerud]

I have noticed also that when the bit slows before the bit plate wne it does contact the bit plate it pushes it down considerably more then it previously did(at least 1/8") also when the bit finds the board top surface the bit pressure onto the board is enough to put an indentation into the board surface( previously just touched off on surface).

I have noticed the harder push at the bit plate even before these changes were made. It was always because the bit was longer than expected. I have not had the hard push at the board surface. Hopefully, 2.005 will behave more gently.

[rockflier]

I have noticed the harder push at the bit plate even before these changes were made. It was always because the bit was longer than expected. I have not had the hard push at the board surface. Hopefully, 2.005 will behave more gently.

Is there anywhere published what the expected bit lengths for specific bits are? I notice that 1.87 "appears" to be more quickly approaching the bit plate. I use many non LHR bits and this information would greatly aid me. Specifically my keyhole, v, and cutting bits are non LHR. Any help would be appreciated.

[bergerud]

If they relax the length parameters, it should not be a problem. Otherwise, I suppose we will have to measure all the bits and make a table.

[rockflier]

If they relax the length parameters, it should not be a problem. Otherwise, I suppose we will have to measure all the bits and make a table.

True, but unfortunately I am not going to upgrade the Designer 2 so I am stuck with your suggestion.

[bergerud]

The real problem with bit lengths is in 2.004. 1.187 is the way I wish it would stay. You have to put in a pretty long bit in 1.187 to cause a problem.

[rockflier]

The real problem with bit lengths is in 2.004. 1.187 is the way I wish it would stay. You have to put in a pretty long bit in 1.187 to cause a problem.

Thanks loads Bergerud. I have seen very rapid rates of approach to the bit plate in 1.87. Thus far no problems but I am going to use a new carving bit that is longer than standard and was concerned. My deep reach 3 flute end mill is also .25" longer than the LHR cutting bit. If you foresee no problem I will give it a go. Thanks again, your help, among others, has been invaluable to me.

[Capt Bruce]

Very timely Ladies and Gentlemen,

I went to carve my first project designed completely in 2.004 after upgrading. Using a Rock Chuck in a B model CW. Was hoping to see what the improved Centerline function would yield. I uploaded the project to a card and as suggested I updated the machine code to 2.004's version from 1.187 to get all the new features. Foolish me trying to improve things.

And doesn't this always happen when you are doing an important commission under a short time limit.

Every thing went well loading until it went to measure my CT collared 1/16" carving bit in the Rock. Slammed down hard into the bit plate and immediately signaled stall error. Checked everything and wasted time checking/cleaning rails and such until I thought to take out the card and go upload the same project to another card. This time, having suspected it was the new machine code, I did not flash the card.

Success, even though it took about a half hour longer to carve the plaque than had been estimated originally.

I opened the Forum this evening to report, and found this already being diagnosed here and discussed. Thanks for the confirmation Dan and others that I did nothing wrong, but I will have to find a way to deal with that extra 3/8" to 1/2" of bit length. Have to do some experimenting on my B model CW using aftermarket bits in slip on collet adapters. For the time being I guess I just stop buying CT bits at the CarveWright Store until this is resolved with a new release of the code. Not all that bothersome except that I work with both a B unit equipped with the Rock and a C Anniversary model with the CT. This will mean I have to segregate all my bits to different machines and double check them for each project as well as segregating my various cards to 1.187 and 2.004 language. Had not expected these new Pain In The A** problems with the 2.004 software improvement.

Old dog, new tricks and slow of learning. Thanks for the good reasoning and analysis of what we're all facing to move ahead. And Merry Christmas All.

[fwharris]

The real problem with bit lengths is in 2.004. 1.187 is the way I wish it would stay. You have to put in a pretty long bit in 1.187 to cause a problem.

I "was" using a couple of long straight 1/2" and 3/8" bit for pocket cuts. The 1/2" has just under a 1/2" clearance and the 3/8" just over 1/2" at the bit plate and had no issues.