topic Re: Fusion Verification and simulation in PowerMill Forum

Fusion Verification and simulation

luc_ponsaerts — Sun, 14 Sep 2025 01:25:46 GMT

According to a Linkedin post from Autodesk, the Verification and Simulation tool in Fusion became so much faster (one demo project : from 2h to 22 seconds) because the tool was rewritten for using the GPU instead of the CPU.

As the Verification and Simulation tool originated from Powermill, wouldn't it be nice to implement this now in Powermill too?

Re: Fusion Verification and simulation

lokesh.kalia — Mon, 15 Sep 2025 09:15:25 GMT

Hello @luc_ponsaerts . The Simulation functionality in Fusion did not originate in PowerMill: it is entirely separate. There are cases where we can make improvements to both products simultaneously, but this isn't one of those cases, unfortunately.

Re: Fusion Verification and simulation

luc_ponsaerts — Mon, 15 Sep 2025 11:29:25 GMT

Good morning.
Thanks. I had a strong impression that both NC verification tools (not only simulation) came from the same source. My mistake...
However, it would be nice to implement newly developed Fusion functions, such as above into PowerMill. PowerMill is still highly regarded by its users, especially in cases where the part to machine is a combination of solids, faces, and meshes.

Re: Fusion Verification and simulation

rich10 — Tue, 09 Dec 2025 14:09:27 GMT

What improvement will be done then?

Re: Fusion Verification and simulation

lokesh.kalia — Thu, 11 Dec 2025 09:59:45 GMT

Hi @rich10 . I can give a couple of examples that the team I'm in are currently working on. One is a better, more accurate version of a Selected Surface boundary, to prevent the chamfering that can sometimes be seen. Another, is to do with the provision of cusp-based stepdowns in Steep and Shallow and Constant Z. At the moment, the stepdown at a given level is obtained by considering the slope across the entire part. This can make machining in some areas much less efficient than it should be, as a smaller stepdown is used everywhere when in some places a larger one would have been possible. We are changing this so that the slope is considered locally, i.e. define stepdowns relative to the local conditions only to make machining more efficient.

Re: Fusion Verification and simulation

rich10 — Thu, 11 Dec 2025 12:28:06 GMT

Hi,
That’s brilliant news and thank you for the update.
The selected surface boundary can be an issue sometimes, any chance of squeezing in an offset to that to so we can manage the roll round better. Reduce/increase roll round effect.
Good news on the steep and shallow too.
Also thank the team for that powermill does not crash as much as it used too.

Re: Fusion Verification and simulation

luc_ponsaerts — Thu, 11 Dec 2025 13:32:46 GMT

Hallo Mr. Lokesh, this is good news, and thanks for responding to our questions.

Is it possible for us to contact you (via this forum), and ask guidance to difficult issues that cannot be handled by support?

Just one example : a macro runs fine in Powermill, but when the macro is ran from vb.net app using the old OLE API, Powermill crashes (always on the same command), or in a second case , gives a complete different result.

Re: Fusion Verification and simulation

lokesh.kalia — Thu, 11 Dec 2025 20:48:39 GMT

Hello @luc_ponsaerts . Feel free to tag me in a post and I'll help if I can. In the particular case you've given though, I don't have experience in this area and can't help, unfortunately. Hopefully others listening to this forum may be able to do so.

Re: Fusion Verification and simulation

luc_ponsaerts — Fri, 12 Dec 2025 15:46:42 GMT

Good afternoon Mr. Lokesh, I'd be surprised if somebody is still using the OLE interface (PowerSolutionDOTNetOLE_2.3) in an application...