## 3 Results and Discussion
### Results of Optical Measurements
Apparently, the 6 and 6\({}^{\prime}\) planes at the ends of the sample have variations almost equal to zero and, after increasing to a relatively large value, remain constant. This relationship does not occur for sample N4, which was machined with the same tool but with a different machining strategy (the tool for general purpose, adaptive cylindrical milling). In the case of this specimen, the curves are similar to the two specimens (N3 and N6) machined with the tool for high-speed machining, for which the absolute deflection values in the test planes have almost constant values. The most significant deformations are observed in the planes passing through the center of the specimen (planes 5 and 5\({}^{\prime}\)). For samples (N2 and N5) milled with using the tool for high-performance machining, it is seen that the planes on one of the cross-sections have initially an almost zero deviation. For the N2 sample, the cross-section with zero value at the beginning of the sample length is seen for planes 6 and 6\({}^{\prime}\), while for sample N5 it occurs for planes 4 and 4\({}^{\prime}\). The other planes for both samples have similar shapes of their cross-sections. The use of the tool for high-performance machining with the strategy of adaptive face milling (N2) results in larger thin-wall deviations of about 25% compared to the opposite strategy--adaptive cylindrical milling (N5); with a significant scatter of values between individual planes for both samples. Figure 8: Dimensional variation of the horizontal thin wall in the direction perpendicular to the direction of tool feed motion, for samples made of nickel alloy machined using an adaptive face milling strategy—determined by the optical method: (**a**) N1; (**b**) N2; (**c**) N3. The dimensional variation for nickel alloy samples (N3 and N6) in the direction perpendicular to the direction of tool feed motion prepared using the tool for high-speed machining have regular patterns for both strategies. The deviation plots for the samples machined with this tool clearly show--again for both strategies--that the largest deflections occur in the 5 and 5\({}^{\prime}\) planes, i.e., in the planes passing through the centers of the samples. In these planes, the deviation is larger by about 0.05 mm compared to the other planes. The differences in deviations between planes 4 and 6 and planes 4\({}^{\prime}\) and 6\({}^{\prime}\) are small, nearly symmetrical with respect to the center. Considering the data presented in Figures 6-9, we see the smallest deviations of about 0.3 mm for the N1 sample--made with the tool for general purpose using an adaptive face milling strategy. The N5 sample (the tool for high-performance machining, adaptive cylindrical milling) also shows small deviations--similar to N1--but has a smaller thin  
Figure 9: Dimensional variation of the horizontal thin wall in the direction perpendicular to the direction of tool feed motion, for samples made of nickel alloy machined using an adaptive cylindrical milling strategy—determined by the optical method: (a) N4; (b) N5; (c) N6. wall thickness than expected. The largest deviations of \(\approx\)0.6 mm are seen for the sample made with the tool for high-speed machining using adaptive face milling (N3). It is notable that despite the largest deviations, the N3 sample has the most regular patterns compared to the other samples. The use of the tool for high-speed machining in combination with an adaptive face milling strategy (N6) is characterized by a half of the deviations (compared to N3), which are similar in value to the results obtained for the N1 sample. Comparing the results for the sample obtained with the tool for general purpose (N1 and N4) to those performed with the tool for high-speed machining (N3 and N6), we see that the trend in deviation values is opposite, i.e., smaller values are obtained for adaptive face milling than for the cylindrical milling.