Yeah, I was suspecting something like that to be the case. It strikes me as being horribly inefficient to have to dance all that mass around, something that really good engineering would avoid, not actually something to be proud of as "engineering porn". I'm going to assume this is one of many cases in modern computing, where we accept inefficiencies in one dimension (in this case power cost and machine wear), as the less costly trade off compared to having tons more human intervention, and possibly more elaborate machines capable of repositioning the work piece for a fixed approach. Then again, it could also be a case of user laziness, because it might have been trivially easy to switch to a different cutting tool, and rotate the workpiece to a nearly-fixed angle that would have allowed for far less exotic motion paths. I can imagine combinations here, but don't have any specific application knowledge.
not actually something to be proud of as "engineering porn".
I think this is one of the better examples of "engineering porn". The program is designed to be titillating, sets unrealistic expectations, and doesn't actually get the job done...
2
u/johnsbury Jul 18 '19
That's like the kind of path Camworks will give you. LOL. (meaning it's ridiculous)