Anuncios

The Autodesk Community Forums has a new look. Read more about what's changed on the Community Announcements board.

gregorANU4T
en respuesta a: cclark

I think those things you want are pretty superficial if I'm honest, apart from #3 which I don't quite understand your complaint...

 

If there were actually some magical resurgence of development in FC, I would much rather see some much more substantial improvements, for example:

 

  • Adaptive turning.
  • Adaptive roughing for side features (Vortex only works on Boss and Pocket features AFAICT).
  • Overhaul of the tool library, and the way that tool overrides and F/S tables are linked to cribs.
  • Better support for multiaxis roughing.
  • Better use of multiple cpu cores for toolpath calculations.
  • More work on Stock Models (current implementation seems unfinished)
  • More advanced tool models, and fewer arbitrary limitations on tool type selection.
  • Publish some documentation for building probing addin support into post processors!!

And a bunch of smaller fixes/improvements like:

 

  • Certain feature level options that should be setup/configuration level options and vice versa (G50 max. spindle speed for example needs to be overridden for every feature individually rather than just once per setup or program, which is really stupid)
  • Viewport Tesselation/LOD is not dynamic, and frequently gets stuck.
  • Simulation bugs on B axis millturn programs.
  • Simulation bugs when using "Use results as starting point"
  • Functional support for 4k/HiDPI displays (running FC on 4k without scaling workarounds currently makes the UI VERY slow with frustrating delays opening dialogs etc.)
  • Finicky/buggy behaviour when manually adding/splitting moves in the toolpath editor.

And a thousand others that I can't think of right now.

 

FeatureCAM is only mature in the sense that it has been around for a long time. If someone actually wanted to develop it, there are MANY things they could do to improve it.