Yes, that got me over the LinuxCNC issue before…( Talking about manually adding a feed such as F50 in the Gcode editor ) And I do that to avoid that issue. But I shouldn’t have to do that. That would mean that everyone who has LinuxCNC would have to do that or scratch there heads on the issue.
Ok, so which rapid rate should we supply for everyone’s LinuxCNC machines? 
In my (possibly limited) experience, G0 moves don’t require a feedrate, and run at the fastest travel rate allowed by the machine.
Fair enough, but just because “it’s always worked this way” doesn’t mean it shouldn’t or can’t be done differently. A second, “full engagement” feed rate would fix your issue and still allow pockets to work the way I’ve always wished they would.
When I’m running a less capable router, trying to get as much speed as possible, full engagement moves would bog the spindle, so I had to run them slower, but only having the pocket use that single feedrate would mean the entire pocket runs at the fastest rate I can do full engagement. Doing a 50% (or smaller) stepover means that subsequent moves can almost always run faster, so I want the 2nd feed rate.
Ok, but if you used a Profile op instead of a Pocket op (just set to “Inside”), you’d have already solved the issue, since that assumes full engagement for the entire op, and uses the specified feedrate untouched. Is there a reason it needs to be a pocket? Is there a setting available in pocket that isn’t in profile? Profile would give you the ability to spiral ramp the whole thing, which would be even faster.
Probably terminology… a pocket is a pocket whether it is a slot or a pocket. A profile, to me, defines an outer, online or inner cut. So I will try your profile inside… most of us would probably not equate that concept of a profile with a pocket slotting operation. Makes me have to think that every time I generate a pocket to ask myself if a profiling op is better here. A bit confusing for newcomers. But I think as long as that is explained in the manual, and that might work.
Thanks… you’ll probably find as many different opinions on this as there are cnc’ers out there. I had missed RC1 - RC3 because of a death in the family, and then this job came up. I also have been away from lasering for a while due to trips and allergies to wood that have built up.. Sigh.. getting old isn’t great, but it beats the alternative.
Thanks for your help.
Yeah, I understand that everyone has their own ways of doing things, so sorry if I came off as aggressive sounding at all - been a long day.
I think I’ll try to add that 3rd feed and maybe make it optional, so the default is your way (which is more likely to be what people expect from other software) but I still get my pet option.
off topic but how do you get it set to MM/MIN? Mine is set to MM/SEC
When you edit or create your machine, it is in one of the tabs. You have 3 choices, mm/sec, mm/m and ipm
im running windows
i get you reasoning on this slowing to ramp speed , but for me its just frustrating to say the least
1: i prefer to ramp due to the harder outer surface of material i use, it has tendency to chip on plunge
but once in , i run at 5.8 mm deep passes /2200mm/m, that’s not a typo,
so when it idles around at my ramp feed of 500mm/m, i pull my hair out
some of my internal lines are 6mm same width as tool so just select all and call them pockets
if i was to select each separate line, which would take hours in some cases and decide which is better pocket or profile, it isn’t profitable, thats one thing i love about MM, select group or all add tool, boom done,
eg: 1 regular job i do , took 75 min to create gcode file in old software
it was the 1st file i tried with MM on day 1 of using MM to compare set up
not even 20 min, seriously MM has been game changer for me in so many ways
2: i have created topic about this before
create tool in library, set entry type = zigzag
ramp angle i run 45 on most tools - save
when i create operations from saved tools ramp angle defaults back to 22.5
for any tool I’ve added to library so I’ve just given up on going in and having to change every time , even if i save them in operation library they default back to 22.5
i get your still in development and need to tip toe with somethings, but agree with another comment re opening up settings and letting user push the limits
As I said in my replies with Paul, I’ll change this so it allows for both - If I have a separate “full engagement feed” with a switch to enable it then everyone’s happy.
I’ll check the ramp angle thing.
Edit: It looks like ramp angle isn’t part of the tool definition at the moment, so that’s why saving them in the library isn’t setting that for you.
Edit2: Fixed for the next update - Ramp Angle is now part of the tool definition - It also looks like Ramp Angle wasn’t been properly saved / loaded.