Multi part Workflow

[ProExtra]

Hello all,

Can someone explain to me the ideal process for multi-part workflow.

I'm looking to machine some parts on a tombstone. About 5 parts per face, 4 faces, so a total of 20 parts per tombstone.

Can someone point me towards something that has the correct work flow.

I.E. Should each individual part be it's own body, should they be their own component etc...

Ideally I'd like to be patterning the tools paths and not have to do a tool path for each individual part. If I use the component pattern, does the part have to be it's own 'component' or just any body?

There is also the question of stock. Should I be modelling each and every bit of stock? Sometimes it's better to keep the model's as small and compact as possible to minimize the file size and stop the computer bogging down.

I'd imagine there are multiple ways of doing this, but are the best practices or generally accepted ways of doing this?

I've tried having a poke around and see if I can find a template or tutorial but can't find much.

FYI - I'm not new to multi-axis milling work, just new to multi-part, multi-axis work through fusion.

Thanks in advance.

[programming2C78B]

I'd put one part per side in its own setup folder with its own offset. 
Program the first part in entirety, linear pattern it to be 5x.
Program the second face/folder, linear pattern, etc 
Rinse and repeat
Stock management depends if all 4 sides are actually the same "part" or different things entirely. 

[BobVawter · Accepted solution]

I've been programming a bunch of 4-sided tombstones recently and the a-ha moment I had was that I should stop thinking about programming a part and then patterning it, but rather to program an entire orientation of the tombstone whenever practical, in order to minimize the total amount of rotary motion in the program.  It's very likely the case that your machine's rotary rapids are slower than the linear rapids.  Setting and releasing the axis brakes can also eat a surprising amount of time on larger machines.

For example, there are operations to be performed on the top of face 1 and on the sides of faces 2 and 4 than can be set up as fewer total operations, saving on machine time.

 

There are certainly cases where I'll use a linear or component pattern within the single tombstone face that I'm patterning, which combines nicely with an enclosing circular pattern to produce a whole-tombstone program.

[ProExtra]

Thanks Bob,

With regards to your parts on the tombstone, how are they brought into the file?
Essentially, what I'd like to know, is it better to have the individual parts as their own components, or have them as individual bodies under the one component?
For the most part it'll do the same, but I want to know if there are any pros and cons of one way or the other. Preferably before I spend 20hrs programming it only to find out I've gone about it all the wrong way.

But I do like you idea of programming a face, rather then a part. The only downside I can see to that is tool changes. My machine has a slow 6 second tool change and sometimes multiple tool changes is slower than multiple 'B' axis index's.

Bill.

[BobVawter]

I usually model with one "part" body per component and N-many components per tombstone.  When I create auxiliary geometry to support 3D toolpaths (a stipple is shown below), I don't have to clone each of the support bodies.  I also prefer using Component patterns, which makes dealing with irregular fixture layouts trivial, since a Component pattern is model-aware.  For instance, the job I'm showing you has two trapezoidal components in reversed orientation per carrier.  I'm programming a G47 engraving on the top-most body and the Component pattern reorients it for the lower.

I hear you on tool change time...  I prefer to program each tool in sequence as its own patterned folder, which, as a by-product, also serves to minimize tool changes.  You can usually rely on Fusion's automatic operation sorting to minimize tool changes within mixed-tool patterns, but I just prefer to think in a top-down, tool-oriented approach.  It makes any cases where I must put a tool back into the spindle really obvious.  I might have a "3F Rougher for Drill Prep" folder, followed by holemaking, and then a "3F Rougher for Bulk" to finish the rest of the roughing ops.

[Christoph_360]

Hello

With this workflow, I attach great importance to simulating the entire program sequence in real life, but this still requires a lot of manual work.

In addition, I have built in the possibility to switch to 1 workpiece.

Thanks

Christoph