Spot drilling using faces as geometry does not work anymore.

[JonSchaeffer]

I am creating this post because I tried to also comment on other posts detailing chamfering issues.

And it is not getting the attention it needs.

I have proven programs that I had used a spot drill to spot to a certain diameter using the faces.

It has worked in the past and since the new update there are a few things that I have noticed that is not working.

1) Selecting the "Same Dia." does not work.

2) And the Selecting Faces as the geometry does not work.

Running production and having every job that I programmed this way scrap parts at set up due to this issue.

Currently I am needing to go through my previously proven programs and re program to correct the issue.

[Lonnie.Cady]

@JonSchaeffer,

Yep, been seeing the same thing myself.  Also, a lot of "hole not is job model" blah, blah, blah

Also running a chamfer tool path on those holes fails and setting the smoothing tolerance can't really fix it anymore. 

[LibertyMachine]

I'm starting to become irritated by the lack of response on this issue. I've officially submitted one bug report on this and one follow up email. I've heard absolutely nothing on it. Is it a problem? Is it being worked on? Is there a timeline to fix this? Heck, is there even a CAM-xxxxx number to track it? Potential work-around methods? 

I'm working (privately) with a couple of individuals who are encountering this issue and it would be nice to, I dunno, show them some support.

-REDACTED-

[JonSchaeffer]

I appreciate the backup support Seth...

Side note, I can't come close to counting how many times you have solved so many issues.

Just wanted to say thank you for being such a help in the forums.

I checked out your web site.

Very nice set up you have over there at Liberty Machine 

[JonSchaeffer]

The more I think about it. this could have been a very costly issue. This was a proven program. 

I am not sure what is causing the issue, but at least it didn't send my spindle to Z- China and damage the machine.

I am a big advocate for keeping the source code current inside Fusion. This is the first time since being an early adopter that I am now getting nervous about posting proven programs. 

Please fix Autodesk... 

[LibertyMachine]

This is off topic to the conversation, but...oh well...

Do you not have a procedure in place to save proven g-code programs into a folder on your computer, or do you just post out the code each time a job comes back around?

Myself, I've got a specific procedure I go through each time a job is completed (or at least twice a month) where I put a date in the header of the program (at the CNC) and save it out to my laptop so I have "Proven" files to work off of the next time the job runs.

Of course, if you are making edits to the model or process, I can see the need for posting out new code.

[JonSchaeffer]

Hi Seth,

I stopped saving G code years ago.

I get the reasons for doing it. I just felt it caused to many other issues and created extra work.

The shops I worked in the past before I started my own company had these issues.

* G code was previously hand edited because tool nose radius was not available. Due to poor tool management.

Then when it was available, the code was wrong again because they saved their changes.

* or REV changes happen at print level but not model level.

The days of "The Print is the Bible"  is coming to a close since solid modeling is so easy and affordable. 

*I believe the control of a program needs a gate keeper (The programmer.)

Machinist with great ideas will work closely with programmers for best speeds and feeds and tool paths.

But I don't need people pointing fingers at each other when there is a problem. I like absolute responsibility to be carried out by the person with the title they get paid for. 

This is my first issue with Fusion 360 not keeping my programs perfect.

In hindsight saving G-code sounds like a great way.

But it has been nice never dealing with the above issues.

I believe the Fusion team will get this sorted out. 

[jeff.pek]

Hi -

Sorry you're having troubles here. Are you able to share a representative model with me?

Thanks,

  Jeff

[JonSchaeffer]

Hi Jeff,

I created a quick video to show what I am doing. and I am uploading the file for you to take a look at.

Sorry I don't have an example of what my original program was doing, I had already modified it.

[brian.donahue]

Sorry, Jon, and thank you for the video and part file which describes your problem down to a tee. Very helpful. Unfortunately, i am able to reproduce your problem and it looks like a regression. (Works ok in 2.0.4383 ).

Because it's a regression, this will be a high priority for us to fix. 

[LibertyMachine]

@brian.donahue thanks for the update, let's hope for a fix sooner rather than later 🙂

[JonSchaeffer]

Thanks Brian,

I have a dumb question...

I got an automated e mail asking if my question was answered.

I wasn't sure how to respond to it.

As far as I know this has not been solved yet, but yes you did say this will become a priority.

Do I consider this an acceptable answer?

[brian.donahue · Accepted solution]

i think so (ha.ha.  i'm a bit new to forum protocol myself)  Just FYI, we don't know the exact fix/problem, but we plan to dig in and fix it really soon.  (e.g. any day now, but i'm probably not allowed to say exactly when, or when you'll be able to 'get' the fix for legal reasons).