Been searching for a little while but can’t come up with a good answer. In the Milling Basics Ryan says use Climb Milling but in ESTLCam it says Conventional is better for most hobbyist machines because the machine needs to be rigid to prevent backlash with Climb. So, which is best for the LR2? Or is it really build dependent and you need to test with your machine and the bits you use? Thanks all!
Easy to test, tough debate.
1 Like
Lol, thanks Ryan - clear as used diesel oil now… Haha. Guess I have a lot of saw dust making in my future!
Honestly I do not see much difference with either of my machines. I feel we are relatively rigid, high power “spindles” and small bits. I feel I get the best cuts and faster speeds using my recommendations, but I assume each persons experience will vary.
1 Like
Thanks. I’ve been using your recommendations so far and they are working, the only one that I missed was the Climb Milling. I’ll be giving that a shot.
If you’re producing saw dust in stead of chips either your feeds are too low or your speeds to high 
But, there are worse problems to have. 
Like producing smoke, or outright flame… 
I’ve observed climb milling produces slightly oversized parts and oversized holes, which gets worse if the feedrates are high. And conventional milling produces slightly undersized parts and undersized holes.
With a finishing allowance and a finishing pass, neither is a problem but I wish Estlcam could specify climb or conventional milling on a per-toolpath basis (or per-tool would be good enough). Then I don’t have to predict the amount of deflection to set the finishing allowance.