Facing toolpath confined to boundary?

[cyltech]

I don't get why there aren't more options for the facing milling toolpath.

I've seen others ask about this before (https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-360-manufacture/facing-operation-tool-containment/m-p/11307638) but I think it's neccessary to have more control over the Facing toolpath in Fusion.

Too often do I just need a very simple and dumb "select face, flatten it out" toolpath at work, and the Facing toolpath is great for that, but I don't always need extra material outside of said boundary shorn away! 

Sketches don't strictly contain the facing toolpath to a certain area. It just gives it the rough idea of what face is to be faced. There are no direct controls to say "Don't touch this edge" or "Stay within boundary".

I can't count the ammount of time I've had to spend finagling and finessing the values of the machining boundary and the stock offset through sketches because the facing, back-and-forth motion, is just what I need at that time.

Yes, I know I can often use some other toolpaths to achieve what I need, but really, having the meat-and-potatoes kind of toolpath that just zig-zag flattens -a particular area-, regardless of holes or features it passes over, stepover a certain ammount each time, is often what a lot of people need over some overly calculated toolpath. 

[cyltech]

Here is an example where I just need to facemill this particular area, zig-zag, back and forth on the Y axis, but still staying within the X-axis boundary of the sketch, to avoid my facemill ploughing straight through my strap clamps.

I don't need help with figuring out how to manipulate this to make it work right now. I will adjust and figure out the particular "stock offset" and sketch size value I need, but really, it's dumb that I need to do so much work on fusion's behalf for such a straightforward toolpath.

[seth.madore]

Face isn't model aware, it just considers the area to be open on all sides. It's for that reason that other toolpaths fill a better role when you have protrusions to avoid, or we use a sketch to contain the Face toolpath.

[cyltech]

I'd argue that it is in fact aware enough to stay close to a certain working area. Constraining it to a single axis boundary, parallel to the path direction reference, doesn't seem like a big departure from that working area selection.

All I'm saying is: avoid certain X (or Y values, not both) in the calculations based on tool width and designated axis boundary width in order to not stray beyond those X (or Y) values in stepovers.

I get that doing that for a round or complicated object is not feasible, so only enable limit if the boundary is parallel to the given "Path direction reference", disabling pass direction angle adjustment if using such limitations. This would mean that single-axis sketch boundaries would actually be followed, thus avoiding customer guesswork.

Fusion would benefit from having this option in order to improve customer experience and productivity.

[programming2C78B]

in these situations I just derive it into a 2D contour and select one wall, use roughing passes.