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
For 3-axis milling and turning is of course is a nice gimmick, but doesn't bring you more than that. Especially because the system doesn't understand that it shouldn't cut into fixtures or parts of the machine.
Where this would really come in is 5-Axis and Multi-tasking machines. Both of which I have but Autodesk CAM is not too good at. So I wouldn´t expect this anytime soon.
If done right, it would not be a gimmick for 3 axis at all. I use machine simulation in a Module Works based product and it gives collision detection warnings for stock to machine, tool to fixture, machine to fixture, etc. Basically, you can compare any defined and modeled components to be sure that they are not in the same space at the same time. I find this to be a huge benefit to the process of using fixtures on my machine since it has proven to never be wrong and and it has never missed anything. It is nice to be able to walk to the machine and know that there is no chance of a collision before you even set it up, provided of course that you set it up the same way you modeled the setup.
This would be a great feature to have in Fusion. One thing I would request as a parameter in the simulation is the acceleration/decelleration specifications of the machine. In the Module Works simulation, that is the only thing missing and it has a negative impact on run time estimation. If the job has a lot of stops and starts, the accel/decel issue can make the estimated run time off by 25-40% because the simulation assumes instantaneous achievement of full velocity for every motion when the reality is that it takes maybe a second or two depending on the speed. A machine that can rapid at 60,000 mm/min requires a couple seconds to go from zero to top speed, so for those two seconds, the rapid averages only 30,000 mm/min. If the total distance to traverse at rapid takes 4 seconds, the last two seconds is decelleration averaging 30,000 mm/min, so the actual time spent at full rapid speed is a fraction of a second, while the average for the entire rapid motion is half what the simulation is calculating.
What I mean is that if fixtures would be implemented correctly in the programming and simulation having the rest of the machine would only be beneficial to 1% of the users.
But doing this for 5-axis would of course mean it also works for 3-axis.
