- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
New "Order For Shorter Links" doesn't seem to work as intended?
Just trying out the new "Order For Shorter Links" which is something I've been wanting for ages. But it doesn't seem to work how I would have expected it too. This is a very basic example, but I have a 50mm tool set to do 20mm stepovers. The first 'front' cut is correct, however the second 'back' cut ends up doing pretty much a full width of cut, ignoring the 20mm step over.
I assume it is essentially just generating the old style tool path which works from one side across, but then changing the order of the cuts? Rather than creating a new tool path that should be working from each side in, until it meets in the middle.
I have added some screenshots below. Hopefully this makes sense. I was looking forward to this new toolpath, but as it's currently implemented, I can't see it being useful at all, as you seem to have no control over that cut at the back!
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
You raise a good point and I think this was overlooked when implementing this feature. I've raised a ticket to improve the behavior; CAM-54081.
Thanks for trying it out and sharing your feedback!

Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
hi @seth.madore ,Another issue is when you select "use chip thinning" togheter with "order for shorter links" the direction "climb milling " is no longer valid!
So with multiple passes, the first pass is climb, second conventional, our mills really don't like this ![]()
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
If you update to the latest Production release (just came out last night) you will find that both matters should be resolved ![]()

Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
hi Seth, that's weird, I tested this yesterday before and after updating to
Fusion 2.0.20256 x86_64
combining "Order For Shorter Links" with "use chip thinning" , no change for me, still climb-conventional-climb
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
I just checked this now and its working Fine for me.
Can you share and example .f3d where this isn't working?
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
I've attached a f3d...
the problem only occurs if the mill ends on the other side as where the start point is, so with unequal passes
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Ah yes I see, and multiple depths
My test had an even number of stepovers and also no multiple depths.
Your example file should be good data for @seth.madore to report this.
- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Mute
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Permalink
- Report
Thanks @a.laasW8M6T and @Ks-bart, I've opened up CAM-57065 to investigate the issue

Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Fusion