Fusion Educators
Are you an educator who uses Fusion (formerly Fusion 360) in their courses in secondary and post-secondary? This is the official Autodesk forum for educators like yourself to share the success you are having with Fusion in the classroom.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Problem with Fusion 360 Siemens 840D post processor file

16 REPLIES 16
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 17
jcornwall
799 Views, 16 Replies

Problem with Fusion 360 Siemens 840D post processor file

Hi,

 

I have a problem with, I believe, the post processor I'm using with Fusion for my DMG Mori DMU 75.  I have a simple part with, among other toolpaths, two swarfs and a trace.  I have two versions of it: one has a swarf, then the trace, then the 2nd swarf.  The other version has the two swarfs followed by the trace.  Both versions simulate perfectly on Fusion. 

 

However, when I post the programs and simulate them on my actual DMU 75, the version with the trace between the two swarfs does not work correctly.  The tool follows the toolpath, but is oriented 90 degrees to what it should be.  The version with the trace after both swarfs simulates on the DMU 75 perfectly, just as it does in Fusion.  This seems like it must be a problem with my post file.  My DMU 75 has a Siemens 840D controller.

 

Any help that anyone can provide would be much appreciated.  I have students doing 5-axis projects and if we can't trust that the machine will actually do what the Fusion simulation says it will, we have a big problem.

 

Attached is a Zip file with:

  • Fusion files for both versions - they both have all the fixtures and the machine file, so they're quite large.  I couldn't figure out how to export them without the machine.
  • NC (mpf) programs for both versions
  • the post file I am using
  • Images of the controller simulation showing both it working correctly and incorrectly.
  • Images of the final simulation as well as the actual machined part.

Thanks!

Jeremy

16 REPLIES 16
Message 2 of 17
kellings
in reply to: jcornwall

Hi @jcornwall I'll be looking into this one. I'll keep you updated as to what I find. Some of the simulation/post team is in the UK so I may not have an answer for you until tomorrow unless I can figure it out without some post help. 

Thanks,

 

Kevin

Kevin Ellingson
Technical Specialist

If my post resolves your issue, please click the Accept Solution button.
Message 3 of 17
kevin
in reply to: jcornwall

Hi @jcornwall Can you help me to understand some things about these files.? From your photos, one seems to work and one doesn't work. Can you explain what the difference is or what you did different to get one to work and one to fail? 

 

If we need to, I can schedule a time to do a zoom meeting so we can run through things. 

Message 4 of 17
jcornwall
in reply to: kevin

Kevin,

 

Yes, one of them works and one doesn't.  The only difference is the order of the toolpaths.  If I did swarf, trace, swarf it generated the program that DOESN'T work correctly.  If I did swarf, swarf, trace it generated the program that DOES work correctly.  I literally just dragged the trace below the swarf to fix it.  I stumbled upon this as a solution after spending hours trying to understand why the second swarf wasn't working.  I have no idea why the order of the toolpath changes how the second swarf is posted, but it does.  And it really shouldn't - that's the crux of my problem.

 

I'd be happy to meet with you via Zoom to discuss this further.

 

Thank you!

Jeremy

Message 5 of 17
kellings
in reply to: jcornwall

Thanks for that. I didn't even notice the difference. I counted the toolpaths to make sure they had the same number, but didn't realize the order was different. 

 

Did you try to run the incorrect program on the machine without the part to see if the machine actually moved that way, or did you stop with the simulation on the control? 


Last question just to make sure I'm getting everything. Both programs in Fusion work and simulate with no issues, correct? That is what I am seeing unless I'm completely missing something. 

 

Thanks for helping me with the info. 

 

Kevin

Kevin Ellingson
Technical Specialist

If my post resolves your issue, please click the Accept Solution button.
Message 6 of 17
jcornwall
in reply to: kellings

Kevin,

 

Yes, I did actually run the 'broken' one on the machine - just without any stock.  It truly did do the same thing as the simulation.  The tool was genuinely oriented incorrectly during the second swarf.

 

And yes, both programs work perfectly in Fusion, even with the full machine simulation.  No issues.

 

Thanks,

Jeremy

Message 7 of 17
kellings
in reply to: jcornwall

Thank you. That info will be very helpful! 

 

Kevin

Kevin Ellingson
Technical Specialist

If my post resolves your issue, please click the Accept Solution button.
Message 8 of 17
kellings
in reply to: jcornwall

Hi @jcornwall Just wanted to give you an update on this file. The machine simulation team and the post team now have the files you have provided and are investigating. 

 

As I learn more from them, I will keep you in the loop. It's hard to give you a timeline on this one as they need to investigate and work across teams to get this one resolved. 

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin

Kevin Ellingson
Technical Specialist

If my post resolves your issue, please click the Accept Solution button.
Message 9 of 17
jcornwall
in reply to: kellings

@kellings - Thanks for the update.  My students are scheduled to start machining parts next week (Friday), so it would be great if this could be resolved before then.

 

Thanks,

Jeremy

Message 10 of 17
kellings
in reply to: jcornwall

Hi @jcornwall I received this from the Sim team this morning. I've attached a NC file that they asked if you could run through the simulator. 

"I can’t see anything that would cause the problem they are seeing, but my guess is that it might be processing the 5x code incorrectly due to the cycle800 that’s output from the trace toolpath. So, i manually added in a different cycle800 to see how that works"

 

Please let me know the results when you get a chance to run this through the simulator on the control. 

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin

Kevin Ellingson
Technical Specialist

If my post resolves your issue, please click the Accept Solution button.
Message 11 of 17
kellings
in reply to: jcornwall

Hi @jcornwall I just wanted to check in with you on this one again. I know you wanted to run parts on Friday. It may take a day or two to correct the post (if what they think is the issue is the issue). When you get a chance to run the code through the machine simulator, it will be great to hear you results. I just want to make sure to stay on top of this one to try to get your class through the machine. 

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin

Kevin Ellingson
Technical Specialist

If my post resolves your issue, please click the Accept Solution button.
Message 12 of 17
jcornwall
in reply to: kellings

@kellings  Yes, I did run the the program you sent me on the DMU simulator and it simulated correctly.  It seems that the cycle800 that they manually added did fix the problem.  Can the post be altered so that it automatically adds this cycle800 at the start of each toolpath?

 

Thank you,

Jeremy

Message 13 of 17
jcornwall
in reply to: jcornwall

@kellings @kevin   Kevin - Can you please give let me know whether or not you think the post will be updated by Friday?

 

Thank you,

Jeremy

Message 14 of 17
kellings
in reply to: jcornwall

Hi @jcornwall The post is being worked on as we speak. I don’t know if they will have it back to me today, but as soon as they do, I’ll make sure you have it.

 

Thanks,

 

Kevin

Kevin Ellingson
Technical Specialist

If my post resolves your issue, please click the Accept Solution button.
Message 15 of 17
jcornwall
in reply to: kellings

@kellings   Great - thank you very much!

 

Jeremy

Message 16 of 17
kellings
in reply to: jcornwall

Hi @jcornwall Please find the revised post attached. I'm pasting in a comment from the developer below. So please test carefully as is always the recommendation with any changes made to a post. If this change resolves the issue, can you make this post as a solution so I can let them know and they can update the default post and others that used the same old code? 

 

"Please test this carefully. I have updated the logic that determines whether a new cycle800 block needs to be output"

Kevin Ellingson
Technical Specialist

If my post resolves your issue, please click the Accept Solution button.
Message 17 of 17
jcornwall
in reply to: kellings

@kellings  I've used the post successfully on four different 5-axis projects - including two student projects.  These had a variety of 3+2 and true simultaneous 5-axis toolpaths.  We did not encounter the prior tool orientation problem at all.  Thank you!

 

Jeremy

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums  

You've got Fusion.


Autodesk Design & Make Report