Need help with empty toolpath

Need help with empty toolpath

hendrik8UQCT
Explorer Explorer
431 Views
12 Replies
Message 1 of 13

Need help with empty toolpath

hendrik8UQCT
Explorer
Explorer

Hello,

 

For some reason, I cannot get a toolpath for my 2D Pocket. I also tried 2D Adaptive Clearing - with no success/same result as well.

I have looked at several forum posts and reduced diameters. Did not help.

Can you please have a look at my file and give me some direction?

https://a360.co/3k8kAv1

 

Regards,

Hendrik

0 Likes
432 Views
12 Replies
Replies (12)
Message 2 of 13

Anonymous
Not applicable

Link doesn't have option to download.

0 Likes
Message 3 of 13

Anonymous
Not applicable

Make file downloadable,............ or go to  File, export, select F3d format, save to desktop, attach to your next post.

0 Likes
Message 4 of 13

hendrik8UQCT
Explorer
Explorer

Hello,

 

thanks for your reply and the hint. I thought that sharing the link is sufficient.

I have now downloaded the file and attach it here.

Meanwhile, I have created a simple sample project. There, I do not have the issue...

 

Regards,

Hendrik

0 Likes
Message 5 of 13

hendrik8UQCT
Explorer
Explorer

Hello,

 

making it downloadable is only possible with a payd subscription, right?

 

Regards,

Hendrik

0 Likes
Message 6 of 13

Anonymous
Not applicable

OK,... but if you need to re generate "empty toolpath" we can do that  🤣

0 Likes
Message 7 of 13

Anonymous
Not applicable

@hendrik8UQCT wrote:

Hello,

 

making it downloadable is only possible with a payd subscription, right?

 

Regards,

Hendrik


Not sure about that, I have paid license and there were some changes to free license lately that I am not familiar with.

0 Likes
Message 8 of 13

hendrik8UQCT
Explorer
Explorer

@Anonymous wrote:

OK,... but if you need to re generate "empty toolpath" we can do that  🤣


Sorry, I don't get that. What do you mean?

For me, for the one file (Berg Car) I get no tool path (even after re-generating). On the other file it works fine.

 

Regards,

Hendrik

0 Likes
Message 9 of 13

Anonymous
Not applicable

@hendrik8UQCT wrote:

@Anonymous wrote:

OK,... but if you need to re generate "empty toolpath" we can do that  🤣


Sorry, I don't get that. What do you mean?

For me, for the one file (Berg Car) I get no tool path (even after re-generating). On the other file it works fine.

 

Regards,

Hendrik


You solved the problem yourself, so I just tried to be funny, disregard that.

0 Likes
Message 10 of 13

Anonymous
Not applicable

So, it looks like you are playing with tool paths in no particular order and that creates problem.

Using rest machining is relative to previous op or tool, depending on type or operation, intentional stock left or stock left by result of tool size that could not access some areas.

When you mix these things in wrong order, you generate problem for which only solution is ......... not doing that.

 

In your Berg file, using Pocket after Bore makes no sense, in typical scenario you would use drill then follow with Bore.

Also, 2D adoptive should be first in order if you are not going to use drill, something like shown in attached file.

 

 

2020-11-29 10_37_03-Autodesk Fusion 360.png

Message 11 of 13

hendrik8UQCT
Explorer
Explorer

Hello,

 

thanks for your reply.

I understand your approach. But the milling would take ages for my machine. This is because you remove the whole inner material.

As I do not have a 54.1mm drill, I cannot use 'Drill' as well.

That's why I intended to 

1) Bore the outer contour of the upper hole

2) Adaptive Clear only the recess (the horizontal part; not sure about the proper english phrase)

3) Bore the outer contour of the lower hole (the one with the lower diameter)

 

Is that not possible?

 

Regards,

Hendrik

0 Likes
Message 12 of 13

Anonymous
Not applicable

What I presented to you is more or less standard approach to how things are done in machining, if you follow that concept each operation makes logical progression towards finished product.

Software intended for use in manufacturing takes into account these logical chains of activities and coincides with how we do things.

I pointed out that using "rest machining" in some operations in your original file has no logical purpose because you misplaced order of operations that reference such function to previous operation, causing warning flags and / or empty tool paths.

 

If you go against the grain because you don't have appropriate tools or intend to cut down on machining time by avoiding removal of stock in multiple passes, you must understand function of each strategy and use it in a clever way to achieve your objective.

For example, 2D adoptive is a roughing strategy, you don't use it after finish contour, if you call your tool bullnose, you need to define corner radius value,..., you cannot plunge to top of the small hole thru solid stock because you will break the tool on contact,.......... etc.

 

So looking at your original file, I removed some clutter and using only 2 mm flat end mill, reprogrammed job in a way that works to preserve tool and finish each step in logical order.

I raised bottom height for small hole bore by .25 mm to prevent middle slug from breaking lose, that would break your tool if you cut all the way thru.

 

2020-12-05 06_36_13-QTView_(102)MessageTray.png

0 Likes
Message 13 of 13

Anonymous
Not applicable

Correcting myself, if stock is same thickness as model, I stopped small hole bore operation .125 short of breaking thru.

I also cleared lead in and lead out to prevent tool from backing off into middle stock at the end, that too would break tool.

 

 

2020-12-05 06_59_14-QTView_(102)MessageTray.png

0 Likes