CLOSED - In Process Stock Management

[olivia.struckman]

Many of you have requested the ability to ‘carry stock between setups.’ We agree that this is a key area for improvement in Fusion 360 Manufacturing, and we are actively working on building out the functionality needed to support these multi setup workflows. There are three parts to this problem that we need to address:

1.   Allow rest machining from the previous setup in milling
2.   Accurate simulation start up from any point (without having to first simulate preceding operations)
3.  In process stock visualization

While from a user’s perspective these three parts likely seem connected, they actually require different solutions on the back end. As with many of our new features, we plan on delivering improvements in this area in phases – meaning #1 might be done before we’ve finished #2 or #3.

Keeping in mind that a full solution is the ultimate end goal, we’d like to know if you’d find it useful to be able to continue rest machining between setups in milling -- even if accurate simulation still required simulating everything for now (which we recognize adds unnecessary time and pain).  The current plan is to release #1 as a limited feature flag first for testing until we are also able to support the simulation and visualization of in process stock, but your input might change this strategy – discuss this and other topics related to the handling of in process stock below!

[daniel_lyall]

Will 1 work with 2D toolpaths?

[olivia.struckman]

Hi @daniel_lyall,  not yet -- is this something that you would like to see? Are there particular 2d toolpaths for which this would be important for your workflows?

[kb9ydn]

Ideally all toolpaths would be stock aware.  But generally speaking the ones that remove the most material I think are going to be the most important.  So 2D adaptive for sure, 2D pocket also would be nice.  2D contour can also be used as a roughing strategy in some cases, but less so than the adaptive and pocket strategies.  The rest are not so important in terms of stock management.

I guess my biggest question is: what is the intent for "in process stock management"?  Is this only for visualization (simulation) or is it intended for actual toolpath creation; e.g. what stock is left that still needs to be cut?  It would be great to use for toolpath creation but none of the 2D toolpaths are stock aware now, so what would that mean if you mix 2D and 3D strategies?

C|

[daniel_lyall]

@olivia.struckman  What @kb9ydn  said.

Is it going to be like how power mill does it that works well?

[scottmoyse]

I'm curious if the shadowing issue of stock with rest machining is planned to be solved along with the ability to continue rest machining from one setup to the next?

[jeff.pek]

Hi Scott -

This is something that we've talked a lot about, and would like to make progress in addressing, but won't specifically be part of the initial solution, as it's handled by different teams with other things taking up their time. It's definitely on the radar, and we expect to address it, but perhaps on a different timescale.

Jeff

[scottmoyse]

Fair enough. Thanks.

[Marco.Takx]

Like to see it as PowerMill handles this.

Easy to reference to the state of Stock in each operation.

And when there are some changes the stock result is up to date and so also the toolpaths.

[SolubleSpork]

---

@olivia.struckman wrote:

...

We’d like to know if you’d find it useful to be able to continue rest machining between setups in milling -- even if accurate simulation still required simulating everything for now (which we recognize adds unnecessary time and pain).

...

---

YES.  I do not know the specifics of PowerMill (will be looking into this shortly) and how it works, but yes.  I will GLADLY simulate through the previous operations of a part if it means that I will be able to have a simple workflow for rest machining a second, third, fourth, etc setup on my parts.  By far and above, in my opinion, the hassle of current workflows for "next setup rest machining" (simulate toolpaths with stock on, move to end, export stock STL, import as new stock, etc etc.) greatly outweighs the time and pain of a SIMPLE workflow that I would still have to simulate ALL the operations of ALL the setups just to get an accurate simulation.

You give us a stupid simple way to create a second setup from the outcome of a previous setup (perhaps keep it somehow parametric to update with changes made to the first setup after the new setup is already created)... You will have enormous amounts of praise in the comments section of the update post/videos describing the new feature.

Don't get me wrong, phases 2 and 3 of the big picture for this idea will be phenomenal and I am very excited for the day those come out - but in my opinion, phase 1 is much more important.  I would much rather have phase 1 sooner by itself than a more polished phase 1 with preliminary phase 2 or 3 or a combo later.

[serg]

Is it possible to implement generative design in Fusion 360 for the student version?

[olivia.struckman]

Hi @SolubleSpork, thanks for your response. We'll be releasing #1 behind a feature flag with the next release, and it'd be great to get your feedback. I'll ping you with details. 

@serg No, generative design is currently only available with Commercial licenses, or through some educational institutions. You can read more here.

[SolubleSpork]

@olivia.struckman I'd definitely love to get more details, thanks.  One question though that I would imagine others might have from reading these posts, what do you mean by "behind a feature flag with the next release"?  Is that the official, AutoDesk internal way of saying that it will be released in the next update (not sure when that is) as preview functionality?

[tomGKJVK]

Yes, at least #1 would be a big step in the right direction.  A few extra minutes simulating could save tons of time from cutting air in subsequent operations.

[Anonymous]

As far as #1 goes, why require "rest machining" operations at all? In addition to allowing the initial setup stock to be a box, a cylinder, or from a body/mesh, why not just allow it to be from the previous setup's operations? That would allow all operations to benefit from it, not just 3D adaptives. Essentially just automate the steps John goes through in his Fusion Friday 114:

[daniel_lyall]

@Anonymous  1 is this  previous setup's operations/toolpath's if it is going to be like power mills it is a carryover

[SolubleSpork]

@Anonymous I may have assumed that your idea is what was meant by the original post.  But I agree with you if I originally misunderstood.  The biggest thing to me would be carrying stock from one setup to the next in a simple manner. Rest machining is great, but "from previous op" for a stock option would be MUCH more useful and would apply to non-adaptives as well.  Huge win.

[fleming.kyle.william]

@Anonymous Great Response. Thank you very much for that bit.. 😉

[tomGKJVK]

@Anonymous's solution is ideal.

I am trying to use the Continuous Rest Machining functionality as it's been partially implemented.  It worked fine on a simple part, but Fusion crashes consistently when trying to simulate on a more complex part.  It appears the tool paths are all functioning - I'm just going to have to try it on the machine without being able to simulate it.

I wish I could do it as in the video @skyfire360 posted, but we need to be able to switch computers frequently in our shop and that breaks the file path that's put in.