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
I can't wait till main stream media catches this thread . If it does .
LOLWUT? Mainstream media doesn't give two ****s about Fusion 360 and NPT. They're too worried about which dumbass Kardouchian is wearing what clothes today
Feel your frustration! Many functions in the real world are being overlooked. Noticed they enabled the ability to add threads on the hole function. However, if you choose this route it defaults to the nominal minor instead of allowing the user to specify the minor of thread that corresponds to an actual drill size. They overlook the complexity of some parts and that a quick inspect is sometimes needed to apply the tap drill size on threads instead of reverting back to the print or model...
It is indeed frustrating to hit a brick wall in your CAD system, but let's remember that for professional engineers Fusion is a pretty great tool. I'm going to blow off steam on the drum set, and try to keep my criticism on these forums constructive.
@doug.sellner - If you read a page or two back, they posted an update in april that it was coming out after the new hole tool (which is out) and a couple of more recent updates indicating it is actively being worked on, along with a community survey somewhere in there asking about the necessity of modeled threads in the first version. Hang in there a little longer, sounds like we'll finally get what we've been asking for. I'm sure there will be a preview option (if not an outright release) as soon as it's usable in any state
I have other ways to model and machine NPT's, tho I have to agree with everyone that Fusion should remedy this issue. I've worked for years in the heat exchanger industry where most threads are NPT. This is a multi billion dollar industry. The last company I worked for was close to 5 billion in sales per year. Autodesk is missing out here.
Yea probably not. Most of those companies are probably using Inventor (which has had NPT FOREVER, just not modeled) or SolidWorks or something similar.
@Anonymous There are dozens of other threads and hundreds of other issues with F360 just like this one. People only care about the one that is bothering them at the moment and is unaware or doesn't care about the rest. I have tried to get people to take more action or try to make their frustrations more public. I even started the facebook fusion 360 rants, reviews, complaints and concerns page hoping that enough people would post making AD realize how many people were bothered by their inability to keep promises made and address big issues but it has pretty much zero traffic. As much as people get heated in that moment when they need something that isn't there or want improvements when it's affecting them in the moment it's not enough to inspire any kind of action that might actually get a company to notice or really care. Go into the Inventor, or autocad or any other forums and you will see there are threads just like this one dating back decades. This business model of ignoring peoples requests, making false promises, and taking years longer than promised to implement ideas is nothing new to AD.
Your right, until it becomes a priority to Administration, these changes will be put on the back burner. They seem more interested in creating more bells and whistles to attract new customers, rather than working on the core issues. Most people I know use F360 for 3D modeling, CNC machining, making Drawings, and 3D printing. It's really sad they have lost sight of getting the core items to function correctly and work on other stuff.
I don't do any modeling in F360 so don't really care either way. We contemplated switching to F360 because of the integrated CAM but I don't like the assembly setup within it. I'm used to Inventor. I do all my modeling in Inventor. Currently I only use F360 for CAM for our Tormach lathe.
@yoshimitsuspeed I found your Facebook book group . I look at it this way. I can't make parts with only the features I feel like because of difficulty and expect the customer to pay full price. Along with I may give you your part completed years later . The product has some good things about it . Management needs to work on there people skills !
@Anonymous I realized years ago that AD has mastered what I call make it look like you are listening to your customers. It's not actually about listening but things like the idea station and their tactics of telling people they care is enough to make 98% of observers believe they make every effort to listen. Another perfect example is when someone complains about something on the forums or facebook or elsewhere and a customer service rep says "please email us so we can resolve this situation for you." Everyone on the outside goes oh look how responsive AD is. Then you get them in a one on one convo, describe the problem and they tell you in private "Oh we can't resolve that issue right now and couldn't tell you when or if it will ever be addressed." Then they just hope and assume you won't be invested enough to go back in public and point out that they actually didn't do anything other than try to drag you into private before telling you to go eat a bag of dimes.
@yoshimitsuspeed the time to have private conversations with them over this has come and gone. I wouldn't waste my time. I've also seen there true colors and as for a bag of dimes or any other strong-arm tactics that is a game, they don't want to play.
As an avid Fusion 360 user before I became a Fusion 360 Product Manager, I completely understand the impatience associated with waiting for critical features. I thank you all for using the Idea Station as a medium for voicing your feedback, and for continuing to stress the importance of feature enhancements such as this. In contrast to the opinions of a few people on this thread, I can promise you that we listen to customer feedback intently and it is the primary method we use for prioritizing projects.
That being said, this isn't the proper forum to have that conversation, and I’m afraid that no matter what I say I don’t think I’m going to change everyone’s minds, so I’ll keep the subject of the rest of this post to Tapered Threads. Here’s a quick demo of the work we’ve completed on this project:
As you can see, our team has added several tapered libraries to the Hole command, and the resulting geometry of the side walls matches the taper angle specified by standards.
Now before you get too excited and expect this next release, let me warn you that even though we have the basics working, we still have corner cases to iron out, comprehensive testing to perform, and several details to iron out before releasing this functionality. To help us out with those details, if any of you could either respond to this thread or send me an email at lucas.prokopiak@autodesk.com with feedback to the following questions, it would be greatly appreciated.
For the tapered geometry, what would your expectation for the starting diameter be? For instance, for a Size 2 NPT thread, the nominal major diameter is 2.375”, but the pitch diameter is around 2.25”. We’re leaning towards using the major value, but I wanted to ensure that matches expectations. Do you have a preference?
If you were to use the “Countersink” option for a threaded tapered hole, would you expect the default angular value of the countersink to be 45 degrees so you could treat the countersink as a chamfer, or would you use this differently?
Would you ever want to change the “height” of the taper, or simply stick to values suggested by standards?
Do people on this thread regularly use NPS threads as well, or are NPT threads the primary request?
Thank you all, and please reach out with any suggestions moving forward.
The only thing that will change my mind is AD changing it's behavior. It's easy to convince new people that things are better with a little reassurance but anyone who has been around waiting for promised features for a few years knows that it's mostly smoke being blown up our skirts. It's awesome that there is forward progress being made on this but like you say it's still a long ways out. Just like we watched promises for drawings being made 4 years ago and how the next release would bring amazing new features yet 4 years later it's still only 80% to where it should be or where it was promised to be years ago. AD promises CAD reinvented but can't even deliver on what current CAD should be. Then employees get all defensive when AD is called out on it.
As for tapered threads the max and min diameter should be configurable. It would be nice if it defaulted to standards but if you want to change the depth or position of the hole it should be possible. For example if the tapped hole is on a tapered surface you might need to move the hole up or down to get full engagement. Also note that ISO uses essentially the same threads but will have their own standards which should also be available and acknowledged.
Nominal major diameter is for the pipe it's self in reference to the male thread. So if you are tapping the outside of 2" pipe the OD of that pipe before tapping will be 2.375. If you are machining something to thread it will likely be around there as well however again this should not be a fixed parameter. The pitch diameter is the nominal diameter of the female thread at the topmost thread. For the female thread Pitch diameter should be used for the standard but again should be an adjustable parameter.
Countersinks are another issue that should have been addressed years ago and are nearly useless to me at the moment because countersinks cut the thread off at the bottom of the countersink. So for 3D printing or even just to have a proper modeled thread countersink does not work. Frankly I could care less what you do with countersinks until this is fixed. I also don't really care much about any of this until you model NPT threads which it sounds like is even further out. Countersinks are another thing that should be an adjustable parameter because different situations require different countersink angles. For example ISO and JIS use different countersink angles than SAE. If in the case of a countersunk screw this is addressed in the standard then that's fine but it should still be a parameter that could be changed. In the case of pipe threads there is really no standard situation or standard for countersinking or chamfering a hole and more often than not it would interfere with your fittings. But if countersink is an option the angle should be a value that can be changed. Yes I would consider being able to change the height of the threads to be a critical component. Being able to tap at an angle to the surface would also be a critical component and in that situation being able to change the height will be even more critical. In this situation some type of countersink may be more beneficial but being able to do a revolved cut giving you the needed room to work would likely be a better solution.
Of course NPS threads should be available. As should BSPT tapered and straight. And of course ISO pipe tapered and straight.
I would expect the thread size to default to the standard, what that is I don't know since I only machine them for my own use. As far as being adjustable that I would find a must as the only time I cut NPT female threads full depth is when I tap them, which I haven't done in close to 20 years. Female threads are hard to tap on a cnc so threadmilling is pretty normal, hence there is plenty of room for modifications and often 3/4 of a diameter deep is enough and allows me to make my parts much more compact. If the thread tool does not allow modification of the thread depth and hopefully diameter I would find it totally useless and would simply use my current workaround.
