Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Thickness Fixes (+ 3.0 default) #93
Thickness Fixes (+ 3.0 default) #93
Changes from all commits
773f4df
e87928c
ee7e685
ceb3664
8172e21
a68fc98
2ba8388
f82e43c
088bca6
06f9358
57e65ff
5707087
8f5534d
63fcb01
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmmm, I wonder if it would make sense to define the clearance values not on a per-part basis, but as 2 high level parameters, something like:
Since cuts should be consistent and much lower variability than thickness, it seems like it would make sense to use a smaller clearance value for cut-to-cut joints (where dimensions are entirely controlled by cuts) compared to cut-to-thickness joints (where dimensions rely on inherent material thickness and therefore need a larger tolerance to ensure fit).
This part of the model involves both, so it would change to something like:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe, but the variability for both is wide enough that I'm not sure making the distinction would be beneficial. Both the kerf and the thickness are precise but not accurate, so assuming that the initial values are correct the tolerances should be roughly the same for both. The bigger overarching problem is that the design relies on friction-fit parts which necessitate accurate manufacturing.