Announcements
Visit Fusion 360 Feedback Hub, the great way to connect to our Product, UX, and Research teams. See you there!
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Better drill cycle time estimation

Better drill cycle time estimation

I've found Fusion 360's estimation for slots and clearing pretty accurate -- well done, all! But drill op estimations are really bad, and I would like to see Fusion 360 have better estimation for the various canned cycles.

 

Example:

 

I'm using a Tormach PCNC 1100 which has a rapid of 110 ipm X/Y and 90 ipm Z. My part has 64 holes. I used a peck cycle (drill/deep drilling - full retract) with these parameters:

 

Plunge feedrate: 12 ipm

Retract feedrate: 50.4 ipm

Clearance height: 1.37 in

Retract height: 0.97 in

Feed height: 0.814 in

Surface height: 0.614 in

Bottom height: -0.01 in

 

Cycle: Deep drilling - full retract

Pecking depth: 0.0455 in

 

Fusion 360 estimated time: 5m03s

Actual time: 24m11s

 

Here's the G-code setup:

 

G0 Z0.97
G98 G83 X15.4756 Y0.3476 Z-0.0647 R0.8142 Q0.0455 F12.

 

Tormach says that G83 rapids to "the current hole bottom, backed off a bit", feeds downwards by Q, rapids back to R, and repeats. To give Fusion 360 the benefit of the doubt, I'll assuming that "backed off a bit" is zero.

 

My guesstimate per hole:

From feed height to bottom height = 0.824 in in 0.0455 in steps = 18 steps (I rounded down to give Fusion 360 the benefit).

 

Step N starts at the retract height, rapid feeds to (N-1)*0.0455, drills to N*0.0455, and rapid feeds back to the retract height. So we have:

 

From retract height to feed height = 0.814 - (N-1)*0.0455 in at 90 ipm = 0.57 - N*0.03 sec

From feed height to drill height = 0.0455 in at 12 ipm = 0.23 sec

Retract from drill height to retract height = 0.97 - N*0.0455 in at 90 ipm = 0.65 - N*0.03 sec

 

Thus, step N takes a total of 1.45 - N*0.06 seconds.

 

Sum this up from step 1 through step 18, and we get 15.84 seconds per hole.

 

Times 64 holes = 16m54s (vs Fusion 360's 5m03s and actual 24m11s)

 

Now, this ignores travel time, but my point is that I removed time from the total wherever I could (travel time = 0, "back off a bit" = 0) and still came up with a number over three times greater than Fusion 360 did.

 

So somewhere Fusion 360 is taking a lot of liberties with drill calculation.

1 Comment
al.whatmough
Alumni
Status changed to: Future Consideration

This certianly looks like something that we should look into and improve apon.

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Submit Idea  

Autodesk Design & Make Report