I am trying Easel now and though I am able to create and import SVG files I am finding the results a little confusing.
This is a cap we created using an outside machine shop.As you can see the 0.0625 bit easily fits the cutout.
I now want to use my Xcarve to make this logo I want to use Easle to CUT not carve a logo through the aluminum cap. So I create the svg
And import it. As you can see if I were to create a very large version of it it would cut fine.
However if I scale it down to the appropriate size it becomes undoable
This is not on outline but on fill So what gives? The bit size is appropriate to the scale.
Any advice would be appreciated
When you click “Show Toolpaths”, are any paths created?
FYI, If your comfortable sharing, clicking File -> Share, and paste the link to your project here in the forums, allowing others to see your project. This can speed up the troubleshooting process.
Hey @KurtBartels sorry to hear your having issues.
I’ve taken a look at your project and made a few circles .0625" in diameter (representing the bit’s diameter) and placed them on top of the design.
Because the SVG is all fills, Easel wants to fit the bit inside of that fill. If it cant, the coverage warning will pop up (and turn red) and it won’t try to cut those areas.
I don’t recommend you do this, but you can “fool” Easel by reducing the bit size to .01" in Easel, and generate the toolpaths:
This will add to the cut time quite a bit and may still not work (test on a piece of scrap first). Again, I do not recommend you try this.
I notice the cap’s outline is different from your SVGs (nose/neck). The best thing you can do is find an SVG with outlines instead of fills. Then when uploaded choose “Outline - On Path” for the cut type. Easel will simply follow that path and not worry about fitting a bit inside of a fill.
Hope this helps!
couple of things stand out. I created this logo to scale in Inventor and then sent a photo of it over to illustrator and created an SVG of it so I assumed that the scaling would follow. The cap we use is 2.5" in diameter and the length of the logo is 1.25" so that is what I approximated in Easel. Looking at the layout I placed it in what appears to be a 2x2 inch square on the table. Correct ?
As you can see in the OP the 0.0625 bit easily fits inside the logo cutout so I am not sure where the scaling is not translating but in your example the scale is clearly not the same as the finished product. So much for what I thought would be an easy way to transfer our library of designs over to SVGs and use Easel to cut them, lol
I see no other alternative but to try your suggestion to fool the machine and see how it turns out, but I have to say either I am completely missing the point of Easel and proper scaling or this is not a very sophisticated program, or maybe it is only intended for larger wood cutting projects rather than fine logo design. being that I am so new to the program I cant really say But I am looking to try F-Engrave instead at this point.
Phil I am saying it is appropriate to scale based on the real world comparison of the bit size to the logo in my OP Also I explain a little more in the above post
Thanks Phil, I juxtaposed the dimensions you are correct, the height is 1.25" not the length of the logo, my bad The length of the logo is 2.4" Thanks for the picture I see what you mean
Yes it is much easier for me to design around the features I like in a picture than to create a single line drawing. For instance the top of the horse on the rear is like a half moon so a single line wont do it. Basically I would need to re-learn what I have been doing to start working with single paths, but does not seem too hard, just another learning experience
Thanks Phil, yes I see that, I can se it is going to be a learning curve as the graphic allows more artistic expression than the single line but I will have to adjust.
One other newbie question, According to the picture the machine should be carving in nearly the center of the table but instead my result is that it carves no where near there it carves on the very front of the table. I guess I will have to look through the forums as aI have seen other questions like this.
The dotted line on the 2D canvas side represents your material. On the 3D side, that material gets rendered, but the work area doesn’t.
Phil, thank you for the picture , but wow I hope I am not understanding it correctly, as it seems to indicate that a certain amount of dead reckoning is involved rather than precision placement of the end mill in relation to each cut.
My objective is to create a template of say 2’x2’ starboard and cut several 2.5" holes into it in a grid pattern and screw it permanently to the table. I then want to place blank caps in the 2.5" holes and have the machine move from home to exactly dead center of each cap and begins to cut a logo. I want to repeat this process daily and simply take out the finished caps and replace them with blanks and new logos as needed.
Is this the right program to use for this? I dont want to have to dead reckon the starting point each time I want to run the operation I want the machine to go to from home to the exact same point each time and run the operation
No, that was not my point, I am not questioning the degree of accuracy the machine is capable of. My post is about running a repeatable operation based on a template.
Based on your comment “A lot of people are struggling to understand what the work zero point is in easel and how you can use it” I am asking for a reliable zero point to interact with the template.
Is anyone out there currently doing this? If so please share your method.
In this instance starting with machine homed, and choosing the center position in the software. I can move this pattern of stars anywhere on the grid but as you say “Easels work grid means absolutely nothing” so where precisely on the table will the bit land? Without being able to precisely tell it where to land My first thought is to see where it begins the operation on the table and mark it and position my template to dead center of the first star.
What would you suggest?
OK thanks Phil I am running through the process now. Looks fairly simple.
First run using the test example and an ink pen for a bit Looks fine
Then blowing up my svg to a larger size to see how it would come out and I get this. The smaller scribble in the corner was at scale, so I thought scaling to a larger size would make a difference but again no go
Looked good in the tool path, so not sure why the difference