Derive vs Insert, which one is better for CAM

[macmanpb]

In the last Live-Video about derive (https://youtu.be/_tYCfuaagX4) @Anonymous mentions that he use derive, to bring to machining parts into CAM from other designs.

But in this post there is mentioned that insert has a better performance and we should not use derive for that case, and insert gets more features in the future so we should stay on insert instead of derive.

I know the derive feature keeps reference of each part (components, bodies, sketches etc.) to the design it's coming from while insert is more like a link to a design.

Could you explain, what should i use given the roadmap to get parts into new CAM designs?

[paul.clauss · Accepted solution]

Hi @macmanpb

Thanks for posting. I think both the Insert and Derive tools give some good options in CAM and I don't know if one is inherently better when considering CAM workflows.

When @jeff_strater and @kgrunawalt were discussing Compute times in the other thread, I think they were referring to the open, save, get all latest, and recompute workflows. Because Insert does not copy the inserted component into the new design locally and derive does create a local copy, these workflows will be slightly slower. This shouldn't cause problems in any reasonably sized Fusion 360 designs - they are referring to the open, save, get all latest, and recompute workflows taking a few seconds longer with derive, not constant performance issues while working with the file.

When considering Insert vs. Derive, the assembly structure and my desired outcome would be of greater influence than file size in all but the largest designs. Insert is a known workflow - we can use workflows like described in this video to maintain parametric links between assembly and manufacturing files.

Derive can provide an advantage by allowing for more flexibility. Insert will take the whole assembly model into a new file - we may have an assembly that only two out of 50 parts are being machined. Derive would allow our manufacturing engineers to work in less cluttered files by allowing them to pull out only the parts they need. They will also have the ability to edit the derived parts in the downstream file, which could make programming some CAM operations easier if construction surfaces or geometry needs to be created, or if certain instances of a part will need slight variations in geometry.

The sheet metal example at 8:40 in this video shows a good example of derive as well - the ability to derive only the flat patterns takes many steps out of using Insert to lay out cutting operations. Using Insert (even if the file is saved with the flat pattern active) will not allow you to activate the flat pattern in the new file without breaking the link.

We appreciate you reaching out! I hope that some other folks will comment on how they've been using Derive and Insert on this thread - we are always curious about how folks are implementing the tools.

[Lonnie.Cady]

@macmanpb

I have been using both options in the same file.

I insert my vise and soft jaws.  I don't want then linked to the original.  I may want to machine the soft jaws and move fixture stops etc.....

I insert a derive of the component to me machined so it stays linked to the original design and any changes will propagate into the cam file.

[macmanpb]

Thank you @paul.clauss for that good explainenation.

I used a derived part in CAM and that part has a lot of chamfer's. So for the chamfer operation i was able to delete them from the derived part. So the designer can use it and i can machine it without loosing the reference.

[paul.clauss]

Thanks for sharing @macmanpb - that is a great example! We appreciate the input.

[drawingsTGW9A]

@paul.clauss I'm hoping you could answer a question for me regarding derived parts. I'm wondering if there is a way to insert a derived part in the same design as the parent? I'd like to do this for CAM. If a part was uploaded and I need to do some changes to it for CAM purposes it would be nice if all that could be done in one design instead of having to break it out into two seprate ones. Is this possible? Thanks for any info

[macmanpb]

Hi @drawingsTGW9A,

am normally do my CAM in separate designs. My designs are mostly large and have allot of parts that have to be machined. So i split my CAM from my designs.

I think it is not possible to derive a part into the same design as an reference of that.