Using Branching tool on Backtrack & Repeat runs quadruples the stitch count!

More
8 months 3 days ago #1613 by Pascale R.
I'm curious:

I have an object consisting of a simple single run pass (121 stitches). To replicate the other stitching in the design, I need to make it a double pass.

To do this, I selected the object and used the repeat tool. This created 2 objects (each object has 121 stitches). I wanted to consolidate the two objects into a single object, so I selected both and used the Branching tool. All the start & end points were at the same location. The resulting branched object has 484 stitches (4 passes instead of 2).

I also used the backtrack tool and got the same results.



Since this was a simple shape, I thought the branched object would have around 242 stitches (121 + 121), so I was surprised to see that the branched object generated 484 stitches.

Is this expected? Am I overlooking something obvious again?
Attachments:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Related topics

Topic subjectRelevanceDate of latest post
Observation & "problem" with using BRANCHING tool7.99Monday, 05 November 2018
Weird stitch count.7.51Wednesday, 07 August 2019
Is there a way to have the STITCH COUNT to the Approval sheet?7.43Thursday, 04 July 2019
Backtrack Issue5.59Sunday, 23 September 2018
Travel Runs when using fill as "smash down"5.47Monday, 24 December 2018
Lettering tool vs Monogramming tool and height of letters4.69Tuesday, 12 March 2019
branching objects and normal objects3.94Thursday, 30 May 2019
Select tool3.26Tuesday, 11 September 2018
bug input c tool3.26Friday, 19 October 2018
Using the Welding tool3.26Sunday, 10 March 2019
More
8 months 3 days ago - 8 months 3 days ago #1618 by antony
This could be a bug.

In simple cases like this, I don't usually run Branch. Just the old fashioned Closest Join.

Also, if all start and exit are of the same potion, just put it precisely on top, and there shouldn't be any trims. (assume you have normal trim settings.)
Last edit: 8 months 3 days ago by antony.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 3 days ago #1638 by Pascale R.

antony wrote: This could be a bug.

In simple cases like this, I don't usually run Branch. Just the old fashioned Closest Join.

Also, if all start and exit are of the same potion, just put it precisely on top, and there shouldn't be any trims. (assume you have normal trim settings.)


I was trying to decrease the number of objects in the design (applique name with many letters, hence many placement & tack down objects to resequence) and thought perhaps the branching tool would be a solution.

It's really no big deal , but seeing the stitch count quadruple had me wondering "why is that?" especially since the objects were super simple. lol

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 days ago #1643 by antony
Pascale,

If you remember my GPS navigation analogy on a similar post ( community.wilcom.com/embroiderystudio/141 ). I will say that perhaps Branching is not smart enough. (And I shouldn't call this issue a bug.)

I would guess that the key focus of Branching is to cover all stitches, and to eliminate as many as trims possible. And using less stitches is not the top priority. Thank about it, in many situations, a few more running stitches underneath won't hurt much since those stitches are covered under satin/tatami.

So the moral of the story...
Branching does the job, but you (Pascale) can do better!;)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
8 months 2 days ago #1648 by Pascale R.

antony wrote: So the moral of the story...
Branching does the job, but you (Pascale) can do better!;)


Haha ... that made me chuckle :)

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
7 months 3 weeks ago #1749 by Hong
Hi Pascale,

Yes, that's expected result. If you don't backtrack or repeat the single run object, branching it with the same entry and exit points will double the stitch count.

Thanks,
Hong
The following user(s) said Thank You: Pascale R.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.448 seconds