How do I fix an Aspire model with some unintended negative z values?

[Chuck Keysor]

Thanks Brady and Scott!

I've sent Brady the file.... And Scott, what you said makes sense and I hadn't thought of that. I have to go now due to an obligation, but later tonight I'll go and play with the model. I know that some of the problem parts had been "baked" so I couldn't tell if they had been tilted or not.

Is there some way to tell a part to use only its absolute value, and therefor avoid this pesky negative dipping below the Z-zero plane?

Thanks again, Chuck

[mezalick]

I would suggest that you use the "Create Component from Visible Model" tool and then use the "Replace Below" gadget to remove any unwanedt "material" that is below the Z-Zero plane.
Michael

[Chuck Keysor]

Thanks Michael! I am off to a late start, but I will soon get back to my model to apply what you and Brady have recommended! Thanks so much! Chuck

[Chuck Keysor]

Hello Shopbot friends:

a) I installed the "Replace Below" Gadget, and watched the related video.
b) I noticed that there is a new version of Aspire, so I down-loaded that.
c) Then I went to open my file so that I could then go to experiment with my new "Replace Below" gadget.
But first, I moved around my cursor, just checking out the Z heights as shown at the bottom of the page, and to my utter bewilderment, I saw huge negative Z values, like -1.5inches! I selected the top component in my design, and used the "Scale Model Height" tool, and it showed the minimum Z height was -.0106, and certainly not -1.5 inches..... Then I turned the design on its side, and looked at it from the positive x direction, and very clearly, the vast majority of the part is entirely positive, making the -1.5 inch Z height value an absolute impossibility.
Any idea as to what could have gone wrong???? Was this just a coincidence that I installed the newest Aspire update/patch before my z height measurements went out of whack????
Thanks,,,,,,,,,,,,, again, Chuck

[Brady Watson]

Chuck,
It's not all that out of the ordinary for the Z value to be off or unreliable (at the bottom 'DRO') at times. Most of the time it's good, but there have been times it was off for me...and I've come back and it was OK. Go figure. I would not rely on it as the final word. Instead, select the component you want to flush below the zero plane, get its specs from the relief height tool and use the Gadget and so on.

There comes a point with a model like you show where it gets entirely too complex to keep individual components all broken out. At that point, I save my original file (with everything broken out) and save a new one with everything merged or components that don't need further transformation merged/baked. This makes things a lot easier and WAY faster. You can tilt the whole model in one go or use a 2RS to kick it up on either a planar angle or bezier shape to get the perspective you need. You can always go back to the saved previous version should you reach a dead end on the workflow or mess up.

There also comes a point where you reach diminishing return with modelling - often times something small you were worried sick about on the front end doesn't even show up on the CNC or if it does, it is so faint that only you know it is there. You have to 'zoom out' on the project scope once in a while to have perspective...This is a very hard lesson to learn with this stuff- where to be a perfectionist & where to let it ride. All of this of course is within the context of making money...not sure if this is for profit or charity work.

-B

[Chuck Keysor]

Thanks Brady! Sorry for my slow reply,,,,, I keep getting tied up in other things, especially on the weekends......... But I appreciate your reply......

a) My recent post was about the big negative Z height values for the cursor position....... I find that I get those readings to be as I would have historically expected, IF I check on Job Set-up, Z-Zero Position, Machine Bed! So either I am crazy (a real possibility) or the software patch I installed minutes before I started getting these unexpected readings, changed the way the cursor position operates. Well, I'll move on, which-ever the case may be.

b) This is effectively a non-paying job. I saw the opportunity to design and make this great carving. I wanted to see if I could do it, to see if I liked doing it, and to see how long it would take (so I could estimate the cost of other similar work), and use this job as a selling tool IF I wanted to make more of these.

I did make a kind of similar carving for an 1880's house 3 years ago, but it was a historical copy of a very abstract design, based on a really crummy photo. So there was no real right or wrong, as long as it looked like it could be the thing in the fuzzy, torn, blurry photo............ So that was simple compared to this........ However, my interest isn't in making blobby non-descript things, but to make fancy detailed carvings, which in my neck of the woods, is what most of the old fancy houses had. With so little experience designing and making such a non-trivial carving, I am still at a bad place on the learning curve. And for that reason, your experientially based advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks again, Chuck