That was not meant in any bad way, it is just the reality of the PlasmaC getting pulled into the reality of whatever someone somewhere thinks he knows best and making it very confusing for members like you that are doing their best to learn and understand and use PlasmaC, or to put it differently, using Fusion360 or AutoCad for Plasma cutting is utterly useless or something similar to shooting a fly with a shotgun = chances are the fly will continue to fly despite all the noise and collateral damage to the surrounding environment = wasting 2 hours to do a part that will take 2 minutes to cut, not counting the time it takes to learn using CAM.
Plasma cutting is a 2D affair and everything related to it should be treated the same way, as simple as possible so from the included wizard made by Phill that can do some intricate stuff to Inkscape that already has plenty of stuff related to plasma and outputs code that can be used directly in PlasmaC, that should be it ! Maybe add SheetCAM to the mix as it can do nesting easier and better than Inkscape.
My clients have over 10 plasma cutters in use every single day, all day, only one of them uses SheetCAM, and all of them use exclusively Inkscape. One of them went so far as paying over 7000 Euro for several Plasma CAM software packages, only to conclude that Inkscape does everything better overall. Do not get me wrong, some of those CAM packages had some nice features and some did one thing or the other better than Inkscape, while some where utterly useless, but in total the result was very disappointing.
Please do give the wizard and Inkscape a good look, you will not be disappointed.
