Benchy

Viewing 28 posts - 31 through 58 (of 58 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #97418
    Barry
    Participant

    20 hours!  😯

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    JMS
    #97420
    kd2018
    Participant

    1/8″ = 3.175mm

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    JMS
    #97441
    JMS
    Participant

    No sure a unproven 20 hour G-code is in the spirit of this post?

    No, not at all, I had the bit size set wrong. and I did not realize the milling time, never really looked at it.

    Remember this is all preliminary. Adjustments and corrections are probably needed.

    #97453
    Jamie
    Participant

    When I load the svg in inkscape they appear concentric but in Estlcam they are way off.  Am I doing something wrong or an incorrect setting?

    benchy_estlcam

    #97458
    JMS
    Participant

    I had this exact same issue when I started using these tools and it was freaking me out and driving me nuts.

    Make sure that when you open into Estlcam you are selecting mm
    However, I do not remember how I fixed it. It just stopped happening.

    Make sure your Estlcam is configured properly https://www.v1engineering.com/estlcam-basics/

    Also note that I am going to possibly be posting a new one soon. I think I might have the milling time down by a lot.
    I think some of my bit settings are way off.

    I need to fully test the milling of the gcode and design. But I am redoing it in Esltcam to try and figure out exactly what I am doing. I have a lot of testing left to do.

    #97460
    Jamie
    Participant

    I used mm, and nothing in the Estlcam settings looked wrong.  The DXF file is fine, so I can continue with what I was trying to do.

    #97464
    Jamie
    Participant

    This will make a nice coaster.

    coaster

    I took a quick video of the making:

    Attachments:
    4 users thanked author for this post.
    #97524
    Bill
    Participant

    So my suggestion is to cut the logo pretty much as suggested so far, but then move to the side and cut a rotated logo inlay. I think the V1 lettering and logo should be cut to different depths and there be full height tabs on the design. Assume piece thickness at 1/4″/6mm or a similar equivalent with readily available material. If the user chooses a wood or plywood material you’ll be able to see the inlay grain as different than the rest of the piece. Likely not so with MDF…

    So, full depth of cut 6.35mm, lettering cut to 2mm, logo to 4mm, inlay down 4mm then full depth except for tabs with design rotated. Outer circle full depth except for tabs. All done with a 3.175mm single flute end mill.

    Once the design is finished and ready, Ryan can do the CAM and generate the gold gcode. As with the crown any user should be able to fire up their machine, run Ryan’s gcode and get a usable piece. If the inlay doesn’t fit you’ve likely got an out-of-square issue, if the logo cuts fully through or the outside doesn’t go fully through you have a Z steps problem.

    We might want a different design for a carving benchmark… Done with a specific V-bit.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    JMS
    #97525
    Ryan
    Keymaster

    That sounds like the perfect, advanced test. I would be very intimidated to cut that myself.

     

    #97526
    Ryan
    Keymaster

    I purposely cut thing to either align any errors or cancel them, that would be a test of a dam near perfect machine, depending on tolerances. I have been keeping an eye on this thread. It is not an easy topic, but I do think some sort of basic test and advanced test is needed.

    The LCD endcap is a super basic run but there needs to be some dimensions involved.

    #97560
    JMS
    Participant

    I am still working on this. Have some personal issues to handle.
    Need to thicken the outer ring and figure out some feeds and speeds.

    more to come.

    No file updates this time, just a picture.

    will work on Bill’s idea.

    we can do this with the coaster idea and still make usable pieces using Bill’s idea.
    Just turn the disk 90* and mill 2.

    Attachments:
    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #97855
    Bill
    Participant

    Yeah, my thoughts were Benchy is supposed to be tough to print, forcing evaluation of all aspects of your print process. The same thing should be true with a MPCNC/Low Rider test, it should be technically difficult but possible when things are all working right. If we have a known good gcode file then it tests the assembly, once the known good file cuts correctly the user generates their own version and verifies it still cuts right, showing their CAM skills are as good as their machine. 🙂

    #97858
    Ryan
    Keymaster

    Yup, I am still to timid to test my own skills like that.

    Who is going to be brave enough to go first?

    I guess if I clean off my table, double check the the endstops and give it a try…

    What would you consider amazing reasonable tolerances in say HDPE (most accurate easy to cut material I have on hand in two colors). 0.15mm on each part for a total of 0.3mm (0.0118″) or is that being too generous? Maybe a test with inlays that step down from 0.5mm gap to perfect fit?

    #97878
    Jamie
    Participant

    I think there can be specific sequences that can highlight specific imperfections if present, and it’s helpful to incorporate as many of these as possible.  Some of these sequences might not be easy to generate from CAM and might be simpler to just write by hand.

    Lately I have been contemplating the problem of determining precise tool offsets with a simple and painless process, and I made an attempt at a test pattern that would tell me some things.  The g-code is simple, hand-written:

    G92 X0 Y0 Z0
    G1 Z2 F300
    G1 X0 Y20 F1000
    G1 X0 Y20 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X20 Y20 Z-1.5 F300
    G1 X20 Y0 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X38 Y0 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X38 Y20 Z-1.5 F300
    G1 X58 Y20 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X58 Y38 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X38 Y38 Z-1.5 F300
    G1 X38 Y58 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X20 Y58 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X20 Y38 Z-1.5 F300
    G1 X0 Y38 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X6 Y32 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X26 Y32 Z-1.5 F300
    G1 X26 Y52 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X32 Y52 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X32 Y32 Z-1.5 F300
    G1 X52 Y32 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X52 Y26 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X32 Y26 Z-1.5 F300
    G1 X32 Y6 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X26 Y6 Z0.5 F300
    G1 X26 Y26 Z-1.5 F300
    G1 X6 Y26 Z0.5 F300

    Which generates eight L-shaped cuts in a pattern like this: test_pattern  (I found if I rub the surface with pencil first, then it’s easier to see where the cuts are.)

    There are a lot of measurements that can be made from a test cut like this.  But my point is not to propose this for benchy, rather it’s the more general concept of creating patterns that highlight specific defects.  In my case I am thinking if I use one tool to carve (or draw) the upper-left and lower-right L shapes, and another tool to carve the lower-left and upper-right L shapes, I can take measurements and get pretty accurate with tool offsets.

    I agree that it would be desirable to have a finished product that’s attractive, useful, and branded.  I just think it’s also helpful to try to think about fiducials or something that can be incorporated to make evaluation easier.

    Attachments:
    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #97952
    Ryan
    Keymaster

    I guess I should sort of explain my distance from this one a bit, maybe you all can work me through it. I do love all the ideas, but…. I know when something like this comes up there is going to be a whole new flood of tuning questions. Just like people asking “what tolerances does your MPCNC/LowRider do”. I am not interested in helping people tune out the last 0.1mm from a cut, it is next to impossible over the internet.

    For most people none of this matters, slap down some old plywood from the backyard and carve your kid’s name in it, win! I do think there should be some sort of milling test like the Crown, just a basic cut, since most use the crown itself as a milling test, something a bit more advanced, coaster, would be cool. We all know that different sized machines, different spindles, endmills, material, etc, is going to complicate me spitting out some golden code that will work on everything.

    I am also interested in something like Bill is recommending, something like Maker Muses’ Tolerance torture test, so it is very clear that it is a brutal test and give you a sense of where you are at, for this I do not think Code should be supplied, but a good model/DXF should be.

    So a learning path something like, Crown,  a more accurate plotting test that can be measured for accuracy, coaster/LCD caps that can be measured for accuracy, Bills torture test?

    Sorry for the long post, I am working on the instruction updates and new control page ideas and this is fresh in my mind.

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #97953
    Ryan
    Keymaster

    Oh, and I really really, like the idea of some sort of functionality even if it is not perfect. Milling takes a long time, might as well get some sort of benefit out of it.

    #97957
    JMS
    Participant

    I agree. For this there is no magic gcode. Material, Spindle, bit, and the mpcnc build all play a part in the feed and speeds.

    A good video tutorial and a DXF of something simple to produce (coaster, logo plaque).
    The coaster has a lot of angles and geometry in it already.
    It just needs predetermined measurements to let you know you are in the ball park.

    Anyone looking for $10,000 accuracy can go buy a $10,000 CNC and have at it.

    However, wouldn’t it be cool to find out that if everything is put together correctly that you are getting that level of accuracy across builds? That would be a mile stone. Yes, probably unlikely. Who knows?

    Import attached as mm to Estlcam and try it out?

    5″ x 10″ material minimum
    Scale of each coaster is 4″
    My Grid is 1″
    Should have some hangover on material
    Use Foam board first to test.
    Rename to BenchyV1Logo.dxf

    #97988
    Bill
    Participant

    If it were to be a carving test we could angle the cuts for the inlay so most likely they’d fit fine, just not completely seated or slightly too seated if the size were wrong. That’s going to require a tool change though, since you’d want a V bit. Maybe for a V2 version where the technical side gets more difficult. A Benchy style part should be simple to try, but hard to master. Remember that if you get close you can always manually do some sanding to get things to fit and you will still have the object to show off. So, I’m still suggesting the same thing… A void cut and an inlay cut sideways such that once you clean the tabs off you just rotate 90° and drop it into the void where it fits perfectly. I can’t think of any way to do it without needing to cut tabs off, and that opens the door to a little fudging on the final quality. 🙂

    I don’t think success is measured in your tolerances as much as in the fitment. If the whole thing is done at 97% of perfect, it still fits together and you get your V1 Benchy coaster with bragging rights. When you measure it you’ll know more about your machine, because it did fit together, but was slightly the wrong size. If your inlay doesn’t fit then you have outside vs. inside cut issues and might look at that 3mm bit that’s actually 3.175… Anything that leaves you with shapes that are wrong means you have something like a slipping pulley. Over time it turns into a diagnostic tool. “Oh, I saw someone last year that had exactly the same problem, check to make sure you don’t have one 20 tooth wheel instead of 16 tooth like the rest.”

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #98000
    Barry
    Participant

    The biggest issue we’re going to see is not every machine is the same.  Unless we state the benchy should be done in foam, we’re going to have a lot of failed cuts.  Something my machine can cut isn’t necessarily something Bill’s machine can cut.  Maybe my machine is a few inches smaller, or larger.  That’s going to change the speeds and feeds.  So now we can’t all use the same gcode.  It works for the crown test, plotting has no cutting forces.  Now if the benchy is just the dxf files, that would be great!

    #98011
    Ryan
    Keymaster

    That does sound great Bill. I think we are getting close. Part 1 is actually a basic test, lets say Jamie’s coaster with dimensions. So you cut out the first part, get all your feeds and speeds right to get the best dimensions you can. At this point you might have 2-3 coaster, fully functional even if they are off a bit. For most that is a great place to stop. For the brave Part 2 would be the “inlay” cut 90 degrees off, just to prove your build is awesome. Now the part 2 DXF can be available in multiple clearances…right?… At this point you can use these to test your skills. I think.

    To make this easier, just using the logo symbol with no sharp corners would be cool.

    #98012
    Ryan
    Keymaster

    Not complicated enough?

    Attachments:
    #98014
    Ryan
    Keymaster

    Each dimension is an even metric number so all axis can be tested at once. You will know which direction the inlay is cut by the grain.

    #98015
    Ryan
    Keymaster

    We can make them stack-able to test a flip cut (test 3) and then V-bit chamfer the cut and add the logo with small text and points (test 4 tool change)

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    JMS
    #98057
    JMS
    Participant

    I agree. I’m willing to test whatever you come up with.

    Would this work with dual and non-dual endstops?

    The inlay idea is good too. It’s a bit advanced, but can teach a lot of concepts.

    My thoughts were always a multi-step process, of different cuts, one more advanced then the previous. By the end, one will have learned a lot.

    #98058
    JMS
    Participant

    Is it safe to assume single flute flat tip bit, 1mm DOC per pass, 10mm/s feed, total depth 12.7mm, 5% step over, would be safe for any machine and wood, excluding metals.

    There has to be a safe zone in the numbers that could transcend any build.

    All tests first done in foam of course.

    #98484
    Aaryn
    Participant

    I like the idea of many coasters each learning something new. I have another idea to add to the mix. When we start flipping them over to make the stackable we could also have a tutorial on how to create a logo or signature file that can be carved onto the bottom.  Granted it might be better to just make a stamp. And that tutorial is already made.

    #98601
    JMS
    Participant

    I like the idea of many coasters each learning something new. I have another idea to add to the mix. When we start flipping them over to make the stackable we could also have a tutorial on how to create a logo or signature file that can be carved onto the bottom. Granted it might be better to just make a stamp. And that tutorial is already made.

    That is funny you mention the signature. I was thinking recently the exact same thing.
    I have had a lot of things going on and have not had time to start really cutting wood.
    But, that is on my agenda. Stamp is ok, but I think carved is better, won’t rub off.

    Thinking about the tool changes, with the entire process, we could be looking at 3 different tool changes.

    Flat tip – carve out the center and depth, no tabs on the top side
    V-Bit – for the V1 logo
    Bottom Side
    V-Bit for the personal logo/signature
    Flat tip – carve the stacking groove and then the full cut with tabs

    Still working through the processes.

    Also, thinking that this would only be a DXF file and let the user create the tool paths
    We could also advise on how to create this in Inkscape.
    With a guidance on speeds and feeds and DOC’s, but not set in stone.
    No gcode file provided.

    While there is the tutorial on the side plates for the LCD.
    I was reading through it, it’s bit more advanced.
    I think this Benchy is more introductory to beginner+ process.

     

    1 user thanked author for this post.
    #98645
    Bill
    Participant

    Yup, not quite complicated enough yet Ryan. The logo surface is down from the outside ridge as you show, but the area outside the logo should be pocketed down some from there and the center area inside the logo (which will be used for the inlay) should be pocketed even deeper. When the user moves beyond the inlay to the other side we’ll cut the outside to match the red part of the logo depth and do something wonderful and difficult as the signature. (maybe the tiny MPCNC drawing you’ve been using with a V bit?) 🙂

Viewing 28 posts - 31 through 58 (of 58 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.