Filling with Open Paths

[BrayD]

I'm making parts that contain both closed and open paths. When using the fill operation for a visual representation, it's connecting the endpoints of my open paths and leaving that space unfilled. I've found that if I path>break apart and only combine the closed paths with the perimeter, I can achieve the desired look. I'd prefer not to break my paths for the sake of cosmetics; some of these parts have many, many open and closed paths. Breaking/combining would be a chore. I'm hoping there's a solution that will allow me to keep it as one path and still show the fill how I'd like.

Example of a part that I'd prefer to keep as a single path.

1.JPG (13.52 KiB) Viewed 476 times

1.JPG (13.52 KiB) Viewed 476 times

This is what the fill looks like if I leave it as-is. Note the unfilled crescent shape local to the open paths.

2.JPG (14.67 KiB) Viewed 476 times

2.JPG (14.67 KiB) Viewed 476 times

Desired result, which I achieved by breaking apart, combining the two open paths with the perimeter, and filling. This part contains 3 separate paths.

3.JPG (10.23 KiB) Viewed 476 times

3.JPG (10.23 KiB) Viewed 476 times

[adbuch]

[BrayD]

Path>Difference was the winner. It was a good exercise to walk through that on my larger project. Very comfortable with that operation now. Thank you!

[adbuch]

Path>Difference was the winner. It was a good exercise to walk through that on my larger project. Very comfortable with that operation now. Thank you!

I assume you applied "Stroke to Path" first, then did the difference operation?
David

[BrayD]

My issue came from all of the paths being combined when adding fill. I broke them all apart and differenced the closed paths manually. Applied stroke for visual purposes.

[adbuch]

OK - So for the open paths (lines that are not closed paths) you used the "Path, Stroke to Path" tool to convert them to closed paths for better visibility when viewed on the monitor. But you will leave then as open paths for the actual plasma cutting. Just wanted to clarify this for future readers to learn from.

Thanks,
David

[adbuch]

[BrayD]

OK - So for the open paths (lines that are not closed paths) you used the "Path, Stroke to Path" tool to convert them to closed paths for better visibility when viewed on the monitor. But you will leave then as open paths for the actual plasma cutting. Just wanted to clarify this for future readers to learn from.

Thanks,
David

Nope. I didn't want to make them closed paths. Stroke to path was not used.

My approach was to keep the open paths higher in the layer tree to keep them visible, then add stroke width to make them a bit more visible.

I started with this. All one path, added fill, and it resulted in the crescent shapes on the open paths.

Removed the fill and did path>break apart.

2.png (25.78 KiB) Viewed 409 times

2.png (25.78 KiB) Viewed 409 times

Grouped the open paths and moved them to the top of the tree.

Selected the perimeter path, moved to bottom of the tree, and added fill.

4.png (122.61 KiB) Viewed 409 times

4.png (122.61 KiB) Viewed 409 times

Selected the open paths and differenced them with the perimeter path.

That leaves the open paths visible as they're above the closed paths in the feature tree. To make them more visible on the monitor, I selected the group and added stroke width/color.

Reading my original post, I very closely replicated what I did to make it work the first time. I understand the 'difference' operation and the importance of object location in the layer tree far better now though.

I'm not sure what the open path width is on the part you referenced. I only have photos.

[adbuch]

OK - you followed my second suggestion above. I understand now.

stroke to path 3.jpg (66.72 KiB) Viewed 397 times

stroke to path 3.jpg (66.72 KiB) Viewed 397 times

The original image was supplied to you, and not one you took yourself - now understood.

What is the overall size of the finished part?

Thanks,
David

[BrayD]

Indeed! I'll admit communication is difficult when I don't know what I'm talking about, haha. Appreciate the patience.

Total width on the finished part is 54".

[adbuch]

[BrayD]

Yep, that's the dimension I was referring to.

My plasma kerf is essentially .060". Is there a rule of thumb for the minimum recommended width of a closed loop? Something like 2X kerf width?

[adbuch]

Yep, that's the dimension I was referring to.

My plasma kerf is essentially .060". Is there a rule of thumb for the minimum recommended width of a closed loop? Something like 2X kerf width?

[BrayD]

Agreed. I could see arc wonder causing some cut quality issues if it's not wide enough.