HELP Fusion leaves out these surfaces in CAM for reasons unknown

[cowonskis]

I have 4 identical models in this stock.  I don't know why it won't include the surfaces shown in the pictures.  The model has extra stock on both sides.  In the setup, all the models are selected.

In the 3rd pic, notice the 6 out of 8 surfaces that aren't cut.

Thanks

[seth.madore]

Would you be able to share your Fusion file here?
File > Export > Save to local folder, return to thread and attach the .f3d/.f3z file in your reply.

[cowonskis]

Sure thing, see file attached.  Thank you!

[seth.madore]

Looking at your photos again, I just noticed that they're actually all the same!

But, looking at your file, I can understand what you're running into without seeing the photos. I'm guessing that you're wondering why it's not hitting the square numbs at each end? 

Much of the issue is caused by not selecting only the models to be machined in the Setup. When selections are not made, it reverts to ALL models, including your Stock model (if you've modeled it). As such, this is what the 3D Adaptive toolpath calculates against:

 

[cowonskis]

Thanks very much for looking at this.  

I created a setup and excluded the STK model.

Unfortunately, it still treats it exactly the same and won't machine those 6 of 8 identical areas shown in the pic.  

I've attached the updated file if you care to take a look.

Thanks

[seth.madore]

I'm sorry, which features are you referring to? Your initial photo is 3 images of the same feature, showing the end of the part. What is your intent with this toolpath, what is remaining and what is being machined away? 

[cowonskis]

My problem is that the toolpath won't the machine faces on 3 out of 4 of the model (as seen on the simulation screenshot), despite them being the same model under the same setup and toolpath.

[programming2C78B]

OP's issue is that adaptive is only roughing the face on the first part, even though they're all sitting on the same Z height
(I believe the 2 faces being cut is actually unintentionally based off of how the containment boundaries were setup!)

OP, are you running a very weak machine? 60ipm is extremely slow in wood, let alone for roughing.
Would is be faster to just run a 2D contour around your part profiles and adapt the tenons? You're wasting a lot of time doing 2 slots per length!
You may also want to enable smoothing. Your file is now 9.5mb and can be 5mb or less. 

[seth.madore]

Yeah, I see that now. I think the forum was having an issue displaying images and it was giving me the same image for each one..

[seth.madore · Accepted solution]

Apologies for the back and forth as well as the delay in providing an answer. 

I've messed with the file a bunch, and it's possible this is a bug. However, I do have a workaround for you that will allow you to get up and running. 
Select only the boundary for one of the handles. Resulting toolpath should be only one handle:

Next, put that one toolpath in a Pattern Folder and select "Duplication"

 

[seth.madore]

I've logged CAM-61372 to investigate this issue, thanks for reporting it!

[cowonskis]

Thanks for the help.  That works great, and I learned a thing.

It's so out of the ordinary for this to happen, I do believe it could be a bug.

Thanks again, I'll be machining this part in a matter of minutes!

[scottmoyse · Accepted solution]

@seth.madore I started looking at this myself yesterday... got distracted (with work LOL) and ran out of time. 

But IMO this is a bug for sure. It generates just fine if you use a Silhouette boundary and override the Model to only be those 4 bodies, see below and attached. 

Doing it this way, produces a much better cutting condition between the parts than using a pattern as well. 

[scottmoyse]

FWIW, it calculates way quicker with the silhouette option vs selecting the sketch boundaries.

[seth.madore]

Yeah, I noticed that as well (performance). My hangup with going Silhouette is that it included wrapping around the entire part and it wasn't clear if the OP wanted to machine those ends fully, so I'd have to go back and make some sketch geometry to constrain it

[cowonskis]

That's exactly right.  Those sketch constraints allow the big tabs on the ends to remain attached to the stock.  Thanks again.

[cowonskis]

EDIT I figured it out. 

This may be another symptom of the problem I was experiencing.  

After a slight redesign, in the toolpath, I can't get the bottom height to work properly.  

I set it to just below half the depth as before and it won't go all the way.  And setting the bottom height to all the way through the part has no effect on how deep the simulation will show.

I've attached the file.  

I wondered if i had a corrupted version of fusion.  I did a re-install which produced no change.

Thanks