Hello!
Not sure if the surfacing is intended just for the wasteboard and therefore a bigger surface,
I use it to surface all my jobs, today I used it to surface 28 by 5.5 surface, with an IDC surfacing bit of 1", as you can see from the pasted image all parameters are correct, but it left an uncut stripe in the middle, I was able to fix it by changing the stepover from 70 (the recommended IDC setting) to 40, but still, sounds like the code is not taking something in consideration.
I’m sure you’ll be able to replicate as well.
I too frequently use the Surfacing part of gSender to surface my to be milled work but have not experienced this.
Did it actually miss the center area when you attempted or are you referring to the visualization path image above? I’m wondering if it would have actually cut it with the step over at 70 but the center of the tool appears to miss it in the visualization.
@NCNC I believe that you will find that if you set the surfacing parameters to mimic how IDC shows that bit being used, you can use the 70% stepover. You have chosen the option to start in the centre and work outwards in a series of rectangles of increasing size. If you choose the other option - to start on the edge and work you way to the opposite edge, as shown in the IDC video, I believe you can stay with the larger stepover.
I do not believe this is a gSender bug. I have moved your topic to the gSender Question category.
It might just be me but I think the result looks better, less sanding needed, if you go the way @gwilki said and go with the grain. Maybe if your tram is perfect it doesn’t matter but spiral always leaves diagonal lines in the corners for me.
I guess my response doesn’t really have much to do with your question but I thought I’d share my opinion on the two surfacing strategies.
It didn’t start from the center, notice I have lower left conrner selected, but I believe I understand what you mean.
Still, shouldn’t it simply account for all uncut space no matter the dimensions and stepover?
While I agree it’s not a bug per se, it’s a dimension or last cut run the code is not taking into account.
oh, I didn’t measure it and I fixed it right away by re-running the surfacing with 40% stepover.
But from what I remember it probably was about 1/4" wide, yes.
