Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Submitted byAnonymouson03-12-201711:51 AM
Status:
Gathering Support
Add "V Bits" - Tool Management
Please either add "V Bits" or use more clear verbage regarding this tool in the Tool Management library, so that we may clearly add our V Carve bits with minimal confusion.
For us who are new, they both seem as though they have specific functions for larger cut operations with more rough cut characteristics than fine carving, a V-Bits are certainly created for. After a discussion in a forum, I have sent in the request to IdeaStation, as many of us are seeking "V bits" as we know the term and its milling intent.
Adding a specific tool for this shouldn't be difficult for them, and it aids us (end users) finding templates which suit our needs.
Apologies, if you feel that such granularity is an inconvenience to you.
@Laurens-3DTechDraw I have this almost sorted I am do a doc on tools for @Anonymous It's going to be worded to routers. PM a reply if you wont, I know it's confusing
I know the wording is different for wood/routers vs metal but just adding doubles is not the solution if you ask me.
I would hate it if they added a tool that does the same but has a different name. (Because there is an infinite list fo these.)
That would indeed be an inconvenience to me.
Having the possibility to rename the tool types could be an option although that makes help on the forum more difficult.
Just like having a setting for this in the software would add confusion at some points, especially when you go in to post processor editing and find the "metal" names again.
A cheat sheet is at least a good way to start until something smart is thought of for this. @daniel_lyall
@Anonymous-3DTechDraw If these tools would truly be duplicates (as you state), then your tools should be left unaffected, as you already have them added, into their own categories. However, if the current ones are intended more for roughing, then this engrave based convention is added. But, if yours work, and are saved, it should truly be moot for you as again, you have what you need already.
Should the rest of us not get our sspecific setting needs met, simply because you are happy with the "work around" conventions you have accepted for now?
I (like many) rode a bicycle everywhere until I got a driver's license. Was progressing into something more efficient and effective, with the ability to address certain specific parameters for our needs simply a duplication of effort, or does it fill a demand?
Like most things, there is truly no right or wrong answer to this, as it is based upon perception. But setting V-bit feeds and speeds (and others) each time one is added because it is not cutting optimally with Chamfer bits or others, I would also believe as to be "inconvenient" and inefficient when there could be presets.
However, I am satisfied agreeing to disagree on the matter.
@Anonymous It's ok man, I will have a ruff draft up today I am still weighting on permission for the reading part of what I am doing for you
I will do a key for you to show where and what gets put in the tool library, tool by tool.
The V bit part was a 50/50 call, it's ever have it under the chamfer tool, or have a Vbit category, what would be chamfer tool coped and relabeled to Vbit.
There is not much differences between the two, once you have the key it will be fine and easy.
What I'm trying to say is that it would cause more confusion to others if the list of possible tool types would become longer because we need to create duplicates for every different naming for the same tool.
I'm not sure what you mean by that the V-Bits need different speeds than chamfer bits? Of course, you need to set your own feeds and speeds. The ones in the libraries that come with the software are just lame guesses that don't work in the real world. This is the same for every user.
I'm pretty sure that what @daniel_lyall is making will help you a lot.
@Anonymous-3DTechDraw I understand your thoughts. However, my posting was on behalf of not just myself, but multiple people who I know both in person, and those in forums who also seek the same answers.
Normally (if it just me), I will do my best to learn how others have. But, when there are clarity issues beyond a few people, then I will raise an argument.
Thus, while I appreciate your concern. I feel a greater appreciation for my own and those who share my concerns.
For these reasons (and without the need felt to re-establish points previously stated or additional supportive points), I disagree.
I have just been through the tool library in an attempt to create an appropriate v-bit. The only one that renders the geometry of an ideal wood-carving v-bit properly is the countersink bit, which is clearly intended for well, countersinking and not lateral carving, if you select this bit for a milling operation (adaptive clearing for example) fusion will throw an error telling you you can't use a boring tool for milling operations, makes sense, I wouldn't use an actual countersink bit for carving.
You can also make the "tapered mill" render the geometry properly provided you enter an exponentially small "round" for the tip diameter.
(1e-5 or something like that), but it will show up with an equally minute bit size in the list of tools, meaning you have to rely on the the comment associated with the tool to find the correct one. Fusion also throws an error when you try to use it if the tip diameter is too small, due to I think significant figure loss during calculation. Basically you can make the bit look right but you can't actually use it.
It's impossible to make the Chamfer mill render properly due to the assumption that the chamfer mill will be using equilateral inserts for cutting, a valid assumption for most metal milling, but completely useless for most people with wood carvers.
In short I believe that the V-bit is suitably unique that it deserves it's own tool designation. The required specifications are similar enough to the countersink bit that it could be used as a base. Alternatively an extra parameter could be added to the chamfer mill to allow proper rendering of a standard v-bit geometry.
Edit: I'm actually going to change my vote here to adding an extra parameter to the chamfer mill, it would avoid the "dual tool type" fear, and would not result in any greater or lesser functionality for CNC router/carver users.
