I see this with some libraries, not all. If you are in the sharing mood, Mr. Wilson, I would love to know how work within the CAM software to alleviate this. I think we are using the same mill...
Are you having fit issues Jeff?
As for what I was referring to is just understanding the CAM and what it is doing and checking to make sure you are actually fully milling the internal by using the simulation. Just because you pick the right preloaded strategy and the software says its cool to mill doesn't mean it is milling the pattern properly.
Many times the insertion angle and the directions you choose can be slightly askew leaving one wall undermilled slightly. Some libraries compensate for this with larger spacer but this is a bandaid for poor understanding of the CAM.
Also inside of 3shape your manufacturing process will most definitely be either an aid or a detriment towards a more drag and drop environment. If you are doing RAW stl you will have to do more post processing of your pattern in the CAM, If you generate a CAM file as the mfg process it will set most of the information for you but YOU MUST STILL CHECK EVERYTHING before milling in the CAM. Often times it will undermill based on these preset variables.
I can not stress enough how important it is to run a simulation.
There are also some libraries that benefit from the use of a flat end tool for the best fit and knowing when to include these into production will become obvious once you enforce a policy of running simulations to check whats really is being cut.
