Dado Fit and Depth Clearances

Scott G Vaal · Post by **Scott G Vaal** » Wed, Jul 19 2006, 2:25PM

Due to conflicting user opinions we would like to take into consideration changing the way the dado fit and depth clearances are applied for blind and full dado construction (These clearances only affect nest diagrams and CNC output). We would like to take a poll and find out which technique would be preferred.

The current way that it works: The depth and fit clearances that are set on a part apply to dados on that part that are created by other parts that tenon into it. Example: if the depth and fit clearances are set in the left end’s construction parameters page, and the top and deck constructs into the left end, it will cause the dados created (in the left end) by the top and deck to have the same fit & depth clearances defined by the left end.

We feel this causes an undesired limitation where as you cannot have a separate depth and fit clearance for the top and deck or other parts when they construct into the left end (because both the top and the deck or other parts obey the left ends clearances).

The proposed new way: Reverse this behavior so that the clearances set on a part apply to dados that are created by “it” in other parts that it may construct into.

With that said, we would like to know everyone’s opinion on this proposed change. Based on the amount of responses we’ve received over a long period of time, the majority will prefer this being done in the new proposed fashion.

Joe Stone · Post by **Joe Stone** » Wed, Jul 19 2006, 5:46PM

Hello members,

Can someone explain why this is an issue? Are some of you building a\"box\" with different materials which you need diff tolerances for? I can't think of any other obvious issue. ( I'm sure I am missing something ).

Joe Stone

Mike Bowers · Post by **Mike Bowers** » Wed, Jul 19 2006, 11:17PM

Joe Stone wrote:Hello members,

Can someone explain why this is an issue? Are some of you building a"box" with different materials which you need diff tolerances for? I can't think of any other obvious issue. (
I'm sure I am missing something
).

Joe Stone

You are.......

Rick Palechuk · Post by **Rick Palechuk** » Thu, Jul 20 2006, 12:12AM

The more custom the program the better

Rick

David Hall · Post by **David Hall** » Thu, Jul 20 2006, 6:01PM

Scott,

When this was changed from the proposed method to the current method sometime during V4 I thought it was broken. The current method is more difficult to use and limits the programs flexibility.

Here's one place I would use the proposed method.

Blind dado top and deck to sides, full dado back to sides. I would make the full dado for the back very sloppy (compared to the blind dados) so it could be slid into the cabinet after assembly (and finishing)

I also think the proposed way is less confusing.

The rule: \"Joinery belongs to the parts whos edge is involved in the joint, not the part whos face is involved.\" Is difficult enough for new users to translate into the proper tabs and joint choices in construction settings. Throwing in the caveat.... \"except for the fit and depth clearances; they belong to the part whos face is involved in the joint.\" adds unnecessary complexity.

Regards,
Dave

Joe Stone · Post by **Joe Stone** » Thu, Jul 20 2006, 6:08PM

It's nice to see some of us take time away from Star Trek conventions to post ill manered responses to new people asking questions related to the software, you know what the forum is actually for, not posting boats and strippers. If, after a long day I happen to take a quick look at something and post something stupid so be it. I am at least participating. Thanks to the other two for constructive resposes to my stupidity.

Paul Ford · Post by **Paul Ford** » Thu, Jul 20 2006, 8:21PM

Hi Scott,
I have to say, the proposed new way does seem like it will be alot more user friendly. I have another thought on Dado's aswell which I think I may have mentioned some time ago.
We do alot of cut to size kitchens for builders, home handy men and other joiners. Can we have a function added in which would allow us to \"Tab\" the tenon so we can add KD/RTA hardware between the tabs?
We use a 5mm hole for the KD/RTA which allows us to simply screw our cabinet boxes together. If we could have the tab function on the tenons it will allow us to use it more as a dowel situation for location purposes making it alot easier for assembly.
Thanks,
Paul.

Mike Bowers · Post by **Mike Bowers** » Thu, Jul 20 2006, 11:07PM

Joe Stone wrote:It's nice to see some of us take time away from Star Trek conventions to post ill manered responses to new people asking questions related to the software, you know what the forum is actually for, not posting boats and strippers. If, after a long day I happen to take a quick look at something and post something stupid so be it. I am at least participating. Thanks to the other two for constructive resposes to my stupidity.

I guess you better check your PM's tomorrow Joe, I will deal with you in a private forum.

Rick Palechuk · Post by **Rick Palechuk** » Thu, Jul 20 2006, 11:15PM

Almost 200 views and only 16 votes?

Bill Rutherford · Post by **Bill Rutherford** » Fri, Jul 21 2006, 5:59AM

In all the years I have enjoyed this forum, there has never been a rude or harsh word posted here (at least not that I can remember).

Mike, I have to admit to not understanding where your first response to Joe came from, until David provided an answer, I could not think of an example where you would want different fit clearances either.

Joe, We simply DO NOT do that here. Mike posted the boats because it is something that is of interest to him and he wanted to share. Mike has been posting on this forum for a long time and I for one enjoy it when a user posts something that gives us a glimpse as to their hobbies / interests and exposes us to something we may not have seen before. I have shown Mike's video to a few different people. While, I do not blame you for taking exception to his first response, maybe a PM calling it into question would have been more appropiate.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE lets not degrade this forum into what so many others have become.

Just my 2 cents.

Mike Bowers · Post by **Mike Bowers** » Fri, Jul 21 2006, 10:09AM

Bill Rutherford wrote:In all the years I have enjoyed this forum, there has never been a rude or harsh word posted here (at least not that I can remember).

Mike, I have to admit to not understanding where your first response to Joe came from, until David provided an answer, I could not think of an example where you would want different fit clearances either.

Joe, We simply DO NOT do that here. Mike posted the boats because it is something that is of interest to him and he wanted to share. Mike has been posting on this forum for a long time and I for one enjoy it when a user posts something that gives us a glimpse as to their hobbies / interests and exposes us to something we may not have seen before.
I have shown Mike's video to a few different people
. While, I do not blame you for taking exception to his first response, maybe a PM calling it into question would have been more appropiate.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE lets not degrade this forum into what so many others have become.

Just my 2 cents.

You did? That is too cool!

Joe Stone · Post by **Joe Stone** » Fri, Jul 21 2006, 10:10AM

Bill,

I will start by saying I have no time for people who chose to use condescention as a means of communicating with others. I HAVE NOT, NOR WILL I EVER approach life this way. I am new to this product and all it holds for my business. The way I understand this is intended to operate is that the experience of long standing members is offered to those of us who need it until we are at a level to help the next generation of user. That's what I am here for, and the rules say thats what we are all here for. If you are going to ridicule someone for operating inside the rules I think that put your ambitions here in a certain light. If member x feels that his time is too valuable to entertain elementary questions, no problem just do as most do and post no response. I feel anyone has the right to defend their position on any matter without having to hide. The only pm I will ever send will be due to content that will violate the stated rules. I will not apologize for defending myself on an \"issue\", I also would not expect any other member do so. I do apologize for wasting peoples time with childish junk. I am done with this and in the future if I encounter it again it will be simply ignored. I just don't want a senior member here holding me out as the village idiot, I feel it effects my credability and therefore my abilty to get good responses to my posts. If you read the direct response you see more evidence of a certain entitlement that doesn't reflect on me I hope. I was not attempting to be overly aggressive Bill just pointed ( I can't deny being upset at the time though). I know one thing from this , if in a couple years I feel like posting something like that I'll remember this and not do it.

Mike Bowers · Post by **Mike Bowers** » Fri, Jul 21 2006, 10:25AM

Check your PM box

Michael S Murray · Post by **Michael S Murray** » Fri, Jul 21 2006, 10:38AM

Scott, I would vote for the new approach, seems it would work easier. I would also like to see something like Paul Ford mentions. It would be a great joint for custom closet work. The rta is a worthless joint in my opinion by itself. In combo with the blind tenon, it would have endless applications. The rta could even be used as a temp. clamp until the glue sets up in the blind tenon.

Mike & Joe,
I agree with Bill,this forum has been great for a long time.Lets not muck it up with useless crap,that is readily available on other forum's. I know as I have used it myself to defend e-cabinets and Thermwood!!!! But only to outsiders....
Mike

Larry Epplin · Post by **Larry Epplin** » Fri, Jul 21 2006, 10:46AM

Paul,

We have had this construction technique listed as a feature for a while. Hopefully we will be able to integrate it in the near future.

Thermwood / eCabinet Systems

Dado Fit and Depth Clearances

Do you prefer the current way that it works or the proposed way

Dado Fit and Depth Clearances

Re:

Re:

Re: