Fixturing and Manufacturing vs Design Models - Best practices?

[steveHDPJT]

We are struggling to work out how to correctly use Manufacturing models vs the Design space when it comes to fixturing. We are programming for a 4-axis mill using a tombstone. Tombstone is 3 sided with two setups per side (two setups total per part x 3 parts running complete).

Currently, we are working in something like this order:

1. Designing the part to be manufactured in its own component file. Call it Part A1.
2. Creating a secondary component file from Part A1 using the Derive function for plating allowances, call it Part D2. This is the as-machined state of the component, ie what we actually want to make on the mill.
3. Building a fixturing/workholding component file (let's call it Fixture1), which has Part D2 inserted into it to build with, since we need to design the fixture for the in-process part for the second op, and we are designing the fixture by referencing Part D2's geometry directly.
4. Creating a standalone component file for CAM programming (let's call it Workholding1), starting with importing our table/rotary/tombstone models, importing Part D2 for Op1 (so it is instance Part D2:1), then importing Fixture1 (which INCLUDES Part D2 which is already assembled with the fixture for the second op, as a subcomponent of Fixture1, so Part D2 is now a sub-subcomponent of Workholding1, and is the second instance, showing up as Part D2:2)
5. Note that this means that the first instance (Part D2:1) inserted here is a top subcomponent of Workholding1.
6. We now have two instances of Part D2 in the model, one at the "top level" (ie a subcomponent itself) and one at the "second level" (as it is a sub-subcomponent).
7. Because this was not seeming to work for us, we also tried inserting a second top-level instance of Part D2 and assembling it into the model, which shows up as Part D2:3.
8. Create a manufacturing model (which we always do, in case we need to mess with things and don't want to do it in the Design space)
9. Created setups & doing the actual programming. 
10. When programming, we run into MANY problems with the "in process stock" not updating correctly between the setups for Op 1 and the setups for Op 2. For example, even though the correct component is selected (not the body) for both Op1 and Op2 setups, we are seeing in process stock being way out in space, even though the tool paths are applied to the correct area, but the tool path "top" selection which is tied to '"stock top" goes way out to where the "in process stock" is.

Attached pics show roughly what's currently going on.

Does anyone have any input on what we might be doing wrong, or is this just the usual Fusion "it sorta works but it ignores what you tell it anyway" BS? Should we be adding all the fixturing in the Manufacturing model, or is that only really built for editing the features of bodies (rather than adding things into assemblies)?

[a.laasW8M6T]

Yea the issue is with using manufacturing models

I use the Container method(From Rob Lockwoods AU presentation a few years ago) that has basically a template file containing all my work holding and setups that I insert the part into.

this way you have no issues with the in process stock.

I can do a video on it how it works later today if you are interested?

[Christoph_360]

Hello

In order to solve such tasks easily, Fusion still lacks an important function, namely Design Configurations, which should already be in beta testing.

This allows you to generate a clamping-controlled cam variant model, with which you can always supply the correct raw and finished part for each clamping, for the production simulation, for the fixture design, for the cam programming, for the drawing creation, for the clamping device supplier, for the tool supplier, for the machine supplier, for the control, etc.

Mfg

Christoph

[steveHDPJT]

Thanks for that. Why is the manufacturing model the problem? Isn't that what manufacturing models are for...? 

By all means do a video on it if you've got the time.

[dwilliamsFM6K4]

One part, position your workholding where it needs to be for each Setup required in the Design space (I do linked inserted separate parts that have joint origins related to my WCS setup needs), make each setup on the Manufacture space in order you want to go, define stock in 1st Setup, and check "rest material from preceeding Setup" for each subsequent setup

Logically, if you're not bringing your workholding to your part for every setup, you will have issues with subsequent rest material locations as all rest material contains is a bounded mesh around the designated part in the 1st Setup that is simulated "cut" by your toolpath operations and then carried over to the next Setup(s)

[a.laasW8M6T]

Manufacturing models are awful and shouldn't be used for general milling or turning.

They cause more problems than they solve.

Really they should only be using in the Nesting and Fabrication context for Sheetmetal or profiling components that need to be flat patterned and layed out on a sheet.

You are already using derived out components for manufacturing so you can alter those derived components at will without affecting the original design, so you shouldn't need to use a manufacturing model at all.

When you don't use manufacturing models, you can use the Sync view and visibility with active setup, which makes life soo much easier.

Heres a clip showing sync in effect.

the first two setups are in the same lang vise, but transferring the part between table and rotary.

the third setup is the same part but flipped and installed into a lang vise with softjaws for the second side operations

Ill do another video explaining how it works later

[Infernalmecanix]

I would love to see such a video. Thanks!

[a.laasW8M6T]

This is the Au presentation fro Rob lockwood

its from 2019, so Fusion has changed ALOT since then but the fundamentals are the same, well worth a watch

https://www.autodesk.com/autodesk-university/class/Streamlining-CAM-Workflows-Templates-2019#video 

I just adapted it to a 4 axis work flow for myself, also sync view and visibility wasn't a thing back in 2019

[a.laasW8M6T]

Heres a bit of a rundown on my workflow:

[matZ4J2R]

Hi everyone, I'm working on this file with Steve and I figured out what was happening : the part that we are machining is derived from its original model to scale it to account for anodizing thickness, so it becomes an assembly of itself. This one part assembly has an origin of its own, it was overlapping the part's origin at first, but once inserted within the work holding assembly only the part's origin would follow when positioning the part and the derived part assembly's origin remained somewhere random (and since it was hidden it was pretty hard to tell). We made the derived part's assembly rigid so now both origins follow and the IPS is now shown in the correct place. It seems to also have fixed an issue with rest machining we were having for some of the subsequent adaptive clearing operations. Thank you all for your input!