[CNC Lurker]

This was just a test piece, I would like to do some more advanced pieces like the ones that Patter offers: New free reliefs site LINK

Once I get the hang of a simple one, then I will apply that knowledge to the ones with 3D contours with peaks and valleys.

That said, if the stepover is supposed to be 8% - 10% of the bit diameter, then I should have used .02" - .025". I used .1" for the stepover which is about 4 times too much.

I do have Ø1/8" bits, both endmill and round nose that I can use later.

[Mike 1948]

This was just a test piece, I would like to do some more advanced pieces like the ones that Patter offers: New free reliefs site LINK

Once I get the hang of a simple one, then I will apply that knowledge to the ones with 3D contours with peaks and valleys.

That said, if the stepover is supposed to be 8% - 10% of the bit diameter, then I should have used .02" - .025". I used .1" for the stepover which is about 4 times too much.

I do have Ø1/8" bits, both endmill and round nose that I can use later.

I would also say that the stepover was the culprit. I see you have Solidworks jpegs. Did you preview the tool path in Cut 3D? It probably would have shown the divits from the large stepover and saved some frustrations. As said, the cross may have been better suited for a 2d cut option
Get ready for some long cut times when you get down to a 0.01 stepover and relief carving. But Fun!

Good luck
Mike

[lsces]

This was just a test piece, I would like to do some more advanced pieces like the ones that Patter offers: New free reliefs site LINK

Once I get the hang of a simple one, then I will apply that knowledge to the ones with 3D contours with peaks and valleys.

That said, if the stepover is supposed to be 8% - 10% of the bit diameter, then I should have used .02" - .025". I used .1" for the stepover which is about 4 times too much.

I do have Ø1/8" bits, both endmill and round nose that I can use later.

This is a good example of the fundamental difference between the 'raster' approach needed for creating 3D surfaces and the vector cuts which will produce clean lines. I tend to use both approaches here. This model would come out very nicely using 2D approaches, and then perhaps adding some 3D surfaces to the final model. Rastering will never produce a smooth surface since there will always be some element of the cutter profile left which may actually enhance the results, but nor normally would be perhaps sanded over. But 'waterline' vector cuts added after the rastering can help clean things up.