Cam simulation poor graphics

[stuart]

Hi all

Im getting really poor graphics on my Cam Simulation.  Anyone have ideas what to check to improve?  Also the default is Mirror.  Maybe its my pc but this looks terrible compared to Ceramic which I find a bit light.  Whats everyone using?

Thanks

[LibertyMachine]

You likely have it in "Fast Mode":

Change it to "Standard" and you should see some improvement.

Personally, I leave it at Mirror. Not because I like that look, but it's the only setting that allows the colors of the part to change at each tool. I find that to be a very valuable aid in programming, as it helps to provide a visual aid as to where the tool is touching and where it may not be performing as expected. With the "Wall Paint" setting, everything is a lovely shade of ivory with no distinction in between tools. If they could make it work in those modes, I'd jump in a heartbeat

[Steinwerks]

@LibertyMachine

His screenshot shows it's in Standard already.

Personally I like Wall Paint but that's me.

@stuart How small is the feature? The smaller things gets, generally the more "pixelated" the simulation looks, I believe due to the way that it utilizes the STL calculated in the background.

Can you share the part at all?

@fonsecr is there any insight as to what can improve these in Fusion? I've had similar concerns in the past with surfaced toolpath simulations.

[LibertyMachine]

@Steinwerks DOH! I saw the picture and looked at it, but didn't even see the Sim dialog >.>

[brad_francola]

We struggle with graphics quality on turning simulation (see below).  Are there and "secret" settings that increase graphics resolution?

[LibertyMachine]

Other than what is already there, no.

We have Fast Mode which gives a really shoddy display, and then we have Standard mode.

Can you share your file, I don't recall ever seeing something that low res

File > Export > Save to local folder. Return to thread and attach the .f3d file in your reply

And just a friendly note; posting the same question in multiple threads is not an encouraged behavior. Leads to clutter and duplicate conversations taking place as other people visit the forums.

[brad_francola]

Thank you for the friendly reminder...I feel great shame for multiple thread postings...  

File is attached.  Thank you for your help.

[LibertyMachine]

Nope, certainly getting the same thing as you. Ugh, ugly.....

[brad_francola]

Thanks for looking a this.  Do you think this will draw the attention of the developers?

[LibertyMachine]

It's possible. I'll poke a few people I know and see if I can get them to chime in with some thoughts and comments.

I guess the problem has always been there, but most generic lathe parts tend to be a good deal bigger. With the consideration of Swiss Turning in the (potential) developmental pipeline, something is going to need to be done to improve things in this area

[Steinwerks]

This is just from my email so I haven't looked at the post in question, but
try tightening all the tolerances in the Setup (like Spun Profile etc.) and
see if that helps.

[brad_francola]

Thanks. We are trying your suggestion. We haven't found any settings that make the graphics look better but we will keep trying.

[Anonymous]

I'm having the same issue with poor simulation graphics

[akash.kamoolkar]

Hey guys,

I've forwarded your request to our new development team working on Fusion simulation. I'll keep you posted on any updates.

Regards,

Akash Kamoolkar

[brad_francola]

That is awesome news!  We have several guys using Fusion360 at this point.  They really like the software and it is helping them get things done. Thanks!

[brad_francola]

Hello Akash,

We continue to see strange things during Simulate.  I've attached the file if you'd like to look at it.  Generally speaking, it seems like there needs to be a way to "dial up" the resolution - we work mostly with small Swiss parts.  Quite often, our inserts are larger than our parts.

Thanks,

-Brad

[akash.kamoolkar]

Thanks @brad_francola This is very helpful. I have attached this file to our task as a good test case.

Regards,

Akash Kamoolkar

[brad_francola]

Awesome!  Also, you may want to look at that grooving toolpath.  We had to "lie" about the width of the insert in order to get a simple plunge type groove. All that aside, the software keeps getting better and better.  Thank you for your hard work.

[akash.kamoolkar]

Thanks @brad_francola

We're looking to fix the issue with the grooving toolpath but for now as an alternative you can use the single groove operation if all you want to do is just plunge in and out.

Regards,

Akash Kamoolkar

[brad_francola]

Cool.  I feel dumb for not trying that first.  Single groove is super easy.  Thanks.