Multiple Tool Numbers For Same Tool Between Set-ups

[JHarknessX8ZAF]

Is there a way, besides creating multiple tools in my library, to use the same tool in a job but use different offsets or tool numbers?

Example; Setup 1 uses Tool #13 (1/2" EM) to finish 2 separate bores, I would like to use D13 and D130 to control the bores separately.  Then in Setup 2 I use a 1/2" EM to finish a boss, I would like to just select the same tool from Setup 1 but change the tool # to Tool #1 instead of 12, but this updates my Setup 1 Tool #13 to Tool #1.

I posted about this a year or so ago and at that time multiple identical tools had to be created and selected in the tool library in order to make this happen. It drives me crazy having so many duplicates of tools just so I can use different tool #'s or offsets. 

Has anything been updated that I'm missing? If not where/how do I suggest this for a future update?  I'm thinking similar to the new(ish) prompt when using the same tool # for different tools, If you update an offset you get a prompt asking if you want to update ALL offsets sharing the tool or not.

[seth.madore]

Sorry, nothing has changed, it's still the same clunky workflow. While it's been several years since I've used it, Esprit and MasterCAM handled this in the same way as Fusion. It's possible they've change since then, but I'd be curious to know for certain..

[JHarknessX8ZAF]

I came from MasterCam a few years ago and if memory serves me correct they added the ability to change tool #'s and diameter offsets on different toolpaths using the same tool.

Either way, it's something I think would be highly beneficial. Where/how can I request this to be considered for a future update?

[JHarknessX8ZAF]

@seth.madore I wanted to bring this topic back up as it's something that personally frustrates me on a regular basis. What is the best way to request Autodesk to look into updating this. 

[programming2C78B]

Duplicate the tool in your Part Tool Library, and change the D on the second one. Here I have the same tool as D5 and D50. Make sure to choose the right one for each operation, or simply do this manually afterwards. If you model everything as middle of the tolerance, every feature should come out fine with ONE offset anyway. If not, then it's a machine accuracy issue. 

[seth.madore]

Yes, that's the current (and only) solution. The issue is that it breaks links between tools and operations, requiring the programmer to be cognizant of the fact that there are now two identical tools at play. Edit one, have to edit the other

[rengfx]

I've had great success using internal feed adjustments to reliably get the same wear setting to cut the same interpolated holes (in wildly different final diameters) as a precision final bore within .0005" without needed different tools, more than likely the need for this stems from not adequately controlling for an internal feed

Take your wall finishing linear feed rate and adjust it for each bore operation (requires an individual feed adjusted tool path per different sized bore)

I regularly will cut various sized bores for automotive components and get 20mm 23mm 30mm bores all in the same setup, with the same finishing tool set to wear, but using this adjustment is key and they will all be on size

[seth.madore]

I too have had great success with varying sizes of features and same diameter offset number. However, to play devil's advocate a bit, there is one area that can be quite troublesome;  machining threads. How Fusion currently calculates thread data leaves a bit to be desired, for sure. The (often) easiest method to get around this is with multiple diameter offset values.

[JHarknessX8ZAF]

I appreciate the responses, I understand that this may be a different issue (machine accuracy or programming error), but it's something that frustrates me commonly and I hope one day this will be updated. 

[seth.madore]

I wouldn't advise holding my breath on this one. There's a lot of projects on the plate of the Tool Library team, and the request for this feature is rather limited in it's desire. Of course, that could be just my impression, so if you know of other users who are searching for a similar solution, feel free to bring them to this thread so they can add their voices to the request.