sheetcam.com

I'm running Sheetcam Windows 6.1.53, post CandCNCPlasmaLLCNC-rev27C.

I've noticed that I'm not saving my selected path rules with my .part files. When I re-open a .part file, the rules are all available. However, instead of each layer having the correct rule applied, "none" is selected. I then have to go through the part and re-apply the rules to the layers.

Saving to the .job file seems to be fine, but they don't stick with the .part files.

thought I'd bump this, in case it was missed while you were gone. Thanks!

I asked about that a few years ago, have a look here.
https://www.forum.sheetcam.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6590

I've been saving each toolset in it own material folder, ie: 3mm/ stainless/steel/alum then save as finecut or whatever at least that way rules for particular material thickness are saved, seems to work well for me.

Dang. That's disappointing. Having to add rules back into 4 to 6 layers per part takes a bunch of time. It would be infinitely more convenient if the path rule just stayed with the part.

I guess I don't understand how saving path rules with a part is significantly different than saving it with a job file.

Have you tried the 'copy all' to copy the operations?
It even works copying from another job file.

I have a list of stuff that needs to be fixed. This should have been on the list but wasn't. I have now added it to the list. I am slowly working through the list as I get time but I'm not sure when I'll get to this one.

SeanP wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 5:35 am Have you tried the 'copy all' to copy the operations?
It even works copying from another job file.

Yes, but I save .part files for parts I cut regularly. Ideally, I'd just open the .part file, place it on the sheet, and the sheet is ready to cut. That's the whole point of a .part, IMO. Each of these parts have 4-7 layers, and each layer is running at least one path rule. Having to go into each of 10-12 parts, and add path rules to the 4-7 operations per part, takes a bunch of time. Still better, than starting it all from scratch, for sure. But much more of a PITA than just saving -all- aspects of the .part in the .part file. In addition, this opens the possibility of choosing the incorrect path rule for a layer, and creating a bad part.

I have used the "copy all" function when possible. For instance, opening an existing part that has the same layer names and path rules as an existing part. It's more of a PITA than it's worth, though, unless that situation occurs.

Les Newell wrote: ↑Tue Jul 16, 2019 9:26 am I have a list of stuff that needs to be fixed. This should have been on the list but wasn't. I have now added it to the list. I am slowly working through the list as I get time but I'm not sure when I'll get to this one.

Thanks Les! Appreciate your communication and feedback.

I was hopeful that the "save path rules to part" functionality would show up in the latest revision. No dice, but I look forward to seeing it in the future! Thanks for all your support, Les.

Any chance the new update will keep path rules tied to .part files as well? That's killing me right now with holiday orders. Instead of using the .part files, I'm having to save huge .job files full of parts, and just activate/deactivate them as I build a sheet (because the path files are saved with the .job, but not with the .part).

Thanks!

That is potentially problematic. Rules apply to the whole job so if you have different sets of rules saved with each part, things could get very messy when you reload them. You could end up with rules contradicting each other.

Can't you define a standard set of rules, rather like you have a standard tool set?

Maybe the path rules should apply to each part individually rather than the whole job. I'm not sure if that would cause other problems or not.

Les Newell wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 7:46 pm That is potentially problematic. Rules apply to the whole job so if you have different sets of rules saved with each part, things could get very messy when you reload them. You could end up with rules contradicting each other.

Can't you define a standard set of rules, rather like you have a standard tool set?

I understand what you mean about loading parts with rules that don't exist. I ran into this when I standardized my current ruleset (deleting/changing old rule names), and tried to load old jobs. Sheetcam would wig out and lock if I didn't deactivate the old parts quickly (and update the rules). However, having standardized rules negates this until/unless you change them. As well as the knowledge that "if you change rules you'll lose the ruleset in the part". If that happens, you'll have to manually change the ruleset to a "new" rule. IMO, that is FAR preferable to having to manually establish EVERY rule in EVERY part right now.

I have a handful of standardized rules. They are applied to different layers in different parts. Non-critical parts just run a "torch off before end" rule, with global THC off x distance before end. Some small slots, which are tight fits with matching tabs, have DTHC disabled, run at 50% book speeds, and still slowdown for corners (can't have taper or the tabs won't fit). Some exterior profiles with dimensionally tight slots run at full speed w/ THC, but slow down/deactivate THC at the critical interface areas, etc.

I've got a handful of rules that I use over and over and over. Typically, in parts that have 4-7 layers each...having to put the rules back into each layer (after opening the part) takes a ton of time, and introduces a possibility of error. Say 8-10 parts per sheet, with 4-7 rules per part...you're looking at having to enter (up to) 70 rules before cutting.

OK, this is embarrassing. I thought I had fixed the path rules names getting lost some time back. I'll make sure this is fixed for the next release. It's a pretty serious bug and I should have double checked.

Thanks Les!