Raster vs other technique in 3D carves

Is the raster technique really getter than the other technique in 3d tool paths when doing the finishing pass? It would seem that if you start in the center and slowly spiral out, it would be more efficient, but maybe the quality of the cut isn’t as clean?

What are your experiences?

I like to raster cut along the grain of the wood. So if there is any visible tool lines they tend to get lost in the wood grain.

I use VCarve. I don’t like some of the pathing it does when using the model boundary. As it will do theses odd moves and pockets to just carve in the models boundary. And every time a carve area intersects there is a change for some tooling lines.

So if possible I will make an offset outline of the model and smooth it out using node editing so that it will carve the area as a single raster path. It can add a bit to the carve time but I like the results

1 Like

FYI: I upgraded to a screw drive on my X axis. I clamp the wood so the grain runs parallel to the X axis and do all my 3d carves X axis raster cut. So that most of the movement is along the more stable X axis.

Good information, I’d never considered wood grain as a reason. Both hiding in the grain and I’m sure you can run faster if you know you’re always going with the grain. When my carves lose steps, it’s always across the grain and when the gantry is moving towards me. Probably has something to do with the rotation of bit since I’ve never lost steps when it goes away from me. (In general, I’ve never lost steps doing a 3D cut.)

Yeah the Y axis seems to be the weakest link, that is why I switched to raster along the X axis.
It puts the bulk of the movements on the X axis and minimizes y gantry motion.

That thought gives me the warm fuzzies all over.

1 Like