NEW Tool Library

[veso58S5W]

😫that's first impression.
What was the reason to change?
Why mess up good things?
How you organize tools? If I want list to be by #. Or by diameters?
Renumber Tool, now I must go through several operations.

[MatthewPBryant]

Thanks, @ltomuta, this extra info is really helpful. I've made a task for the team to look into the issue further. In the meantime, if you happen to run into the problem again and are able to record a screencast while it isn't working, that would be really helpful!

Thanks again, 

[ltomuta]

Will do. Or maybe there is a log file that would get generated when that happens? If you could point me to it I will make sure to collect it.

[MatthewPBryant]

As it stands, all we get is the error message you've posted. We are thinking of adding some sort of logging for this in the future to help with issues like this one which are difficult to reproduce. 

[ltomuta]

Features request:

- option to copy/paste profile(s) between tools

- option to paste a profile(s) to multiple tools at once

- option to right click a tool and copy its holder

- option to treat templates as special cases of tools libraries (list, edit and delete tools with saving the changes in the template instead of in a library files)

[quadfluiddynamics]

I agree! The old tool library was easy to use.. I cringe when I see the new tool library.. My opinion the new tool library sucks. Go back to the old, and leave it alone. 

[veso58S5W]

Hi there,

almost two years passed?!?

Just started some CAM after several months of not cranking up CNC. Huh, it's scary when a big machine starts moving.

Tool Library as it is right now - I like it.
I don't see any organizational issues. I like new S&F suggestions in F360 library. I think they are also more or less almost on the spot.

I had some kind of issue, when I opened few times TL, realizing - where are the tools I created before?
I didn't see them. I even thought - I didn't create them at all?
Then I went in old files, where I had tool paths, created even before present library. tools were there.
After clicking on All, in TL, they all came out 😃 Might be from not using CAM for months?

[Anonymous]

Autodesk…. Just do us all a favor and nuke the “new” tool library overhaul. Didn’t even realize it’s been almost 2 years. It’s cringe to look at, take the old tool library and incorporate the new features if you must. I also love how now I have to change my preferences every time to go back to the old library. And also how the tool preview seems to have vanished. 

[christopher.cooperVHK2N]

@veso58S5W 

The Team completed a Quality of Life focussed sprint which included small improvements that we wanted to do. One of those improvements was to focus the active document when accessing through an operation. This encourages users to select a tool from this library instead or selecting the same tool and copying it (creating multiple instances of the same tool). It has also improved the loading speed of the library as it only loads the active document tools. We also introduced 'Drag and Drop' functionality and improvement work to the filters including an auto filter which filters the category from the operation - ie 2d contour = filter milling tools.

Overall we completed around 50 - tasks/improvements/bug fixes that the team have been wanting to do for sometime. 
We still have lots of value adding tasks in the backlog so it is far from complete and as always happy to present any improvement ideas to the product management team for consideration so keep posting.
Thanks

Chris

[christopher.cooperVHK2N]

@Anonymous The preferences not sticking issue has been fixed and you should see this in the next release.

The old tool library was replaced in the first instance as there were technical restrictions that prevented us from evolving it and it broke a fair bit , so maintenance was heavy.  Obviously from your response you are not keen on the new one which is fine, there are no immediate plans to remove the old one. It would be useful for us to have an understanding of why (other than what you have mentioned) you still revert back to the old one if you have the time. This will help me to prioritise any work going forward. 

Thanks

[jonathanBUCVS]

@christopher.cooperVHK2N 

I have been setting up the tool library for both our mills and lathes with standardized tooling. We currently have about 60 go-to milling tools and 15 go-to turning tools which we use as our first choice for programming, since we know they will be in the machine or ready to load. In addition, I have also been working to heavily modify the Excel setup sheet to meet our specific requirements for job setup. During this process, I have found a few issues which I have tried to work around, all relate to lathe tooling. Apologies if these have been previously mentioned, I did not read all 13 pages of this thread. 

1. Our lathe tooling requires and insert, a holder and then a tooling block/live tool holder. Each of these items has a part number & EDP number. It would be very useful to have user input fields for all of this. For example an insert might be CNMG432 MF KC5010 with a separate EDP #, the holder is MCLNR123B, again with a separate EDP# and then the tooling block would have part number that I do not remember off the top of my head. (I'll admit, the tooling block number would be much more useful for live tool holders, which we do have to switch often. Most of our static tool holder blocks remain on the same turret positions). 

My current setup is to define the "tool" as the insert, because the grade and geometry is tied to the SFM and F in the tool library. I use the description for the insert "CNMG432 MF KC5010", but I have commandeered the "productLink" field for the holder part number & EDP, which is less than ideal and took a lot of work to get to appear on the Excel setup sheet. 

2. Then we get to boring bars. We need a field to define boring bar stickout, separate from the holder OAL, equivalent to bodyLength on a milling holder. There also needs to be a field for minimum bore, as a 1/2 boring bar does not fit in a .500 hole. Finally, there needs to be a way to define a boring bar with a neck. If I have a 3/4 boring bar with a .600 x 1.5 neck, I want to be able to see that it is a 3/4 shank, grab the correct tool bushing from the tool crib when I am setting up the job, but also know that I can put that boring bar in a .650 hole when I am programming the job. 

3. Drill mills. Currently, I cannot define a drill mill (which is very handy on a live tool lathe where turret space is limited). I tried defining a form mill, but there are operations where that does not work. Currently I have the tool defined as an endmill and separately as a chamfer tool, which is awkward for programming and in the tool list. 

4. Live tool holder definitions. I specifically mention this again because it is often that we use a shrink holder/ ER collet extension for our live tools, which we have defined in the holder section. However, I am also defining the live tool itself in the holder section, such that it appears on the setup sheet. This means there is only one value I can pull from the library to the setup sheet to define the "holder". I currently have a workaround for this, but it took some creative programming on the Excel post. 

5. Live tool direction. This one would be a real stretch, but if there was a way to define spindle direction and tie it to a specific live tool holder, that would be awesome. Some of our live tools are geared such that they spin "reverse". That box doesnt always get unchecked lol. 

I am not familiar with the old tool library at all, but I dont really see what the hate is about. This current tool library seems to look good and work fine, is it just missing details. 

I would be happy to discuss in more detail any of these items, or our specific workflow and how I am hoping to use the library and its features. 

[christopher.cooperVHK2N]

@jonathanBUCVS This is great feedback, thanks for taking the time to get this down.

I have recently been looking at ways for users to add more details to the tools as this seems to be something more and more users are bringing up. Like, how does a user with tip tooling define the cutter body and inserts separately? What it they use and extension or collet?

If a user defines a CNMG Roughing tool and then in the presets has different presets for the different grades of inserts should we add a text box per preset?

I will create some potential solutions and reach out to you so I can understand your workflow better and develop this feature.

Thanks

[jonathanBUCVS]

@christopher.cooperVHK2NIf you want to do a zoom call for some screen share feedback, or send a DM, happy to help. Otherwise I look forward to seeing the potential solutions in the future. 

for tip/indexable tooling on the mill, we have been fortunate to have dedicated tool numbers for different insert grades/holders, that has been our current workaround. 

If I understand you correctly, define the basic insert geometry ie CNMG, then in the cutting data specify both the insert grade and workpiece material? I didnt think about this option for workflow. If it was in this manner, I would like to see a field for EDP tied to insert grade, as that is handy for reordering, while the user readable description "CNMG" or "KC5010" is handy for programming and setup. 

My current setup is to define the insert shape and grade and then define just the material in the cutting data, so CNMG KC5010 has steel and stainless, CNGP K5040 has brass and aluminum, etc. But with our workflow we are lucky enough to have honed in on just a few inserts for a wide variety of materials and jobs. 

[Ketherton21]

99% of it IMO is that its laid out different and seems to be super bright and hurts your eyes to even look at. I just don’t see why you couldn’t keep the old layout and colors and integrate the new features into it. When I use the new one everything seems to blend together and become a convoluted mess. I have to squint to even see any sort of division in the different sections etc. it simply hurts my eyes to start with.

[a.laasW8M6T]

I haven't really noticed the new layout too much, but now you point it out it is pretty awful to look at, it just doesn't really bother me.

In saying that it could definitely benefit from clearer borders that don't blend into the background.

[martha.deans]

Hi all, thanks a ton for the continued feedback! We're in the process of assessing and defining next steps for tool library development, including reading closely through the issues and feedback you all have raised in this thread. We're looking forward to getting fixes and improvements delivered to you as soon as we can. 

With regards to the new interface and layout, this feedback is great for our experience design team, and we've passed it on to see what they can do to address those issues. We definitely want the interface to be navigable and usable for everyone! 

[FrodoLoggins]

Super simple, but that's a bit above my pay grade. If I sent you over the .FSSC file for my current setup sheets would you be able to edit it for me and I'll Paypal you $100 USD or something?

It's been about 6 months. What I'm trying to achieve is this:

Currently, the length field in the setup sheets simply show me what value I entered in. For example; If I programmed a tool with 1.75" sticking out from the tool holder, the length field will show 1.75". But that 1.75" value was kinda random. I said, "Eh the tool should stick out IDK at least maybe 1.75" so I'll set it to 1.75"", run the simulation, and see if there are any collisions.

I would instead like the new setup sheet to think a bit for me: "Ok, the bottom of the tool goes 1.695" below the top of the model/stock at it's lowest point. So the tool needs to stick out at least 1.695" for the tool holder to clear. I know Frodo specified the projected length is 1.75" but he doesn't need that much stick out. I'll let him know he only needs to stick that tool out 1.695"".

Is this possible?

[martha.deans]

The setup sheet will show you the minimum Z, which I believe you could use in the way you described. I set up my WCS origin at the top of my stock for this part, so the math is quite easy and of course could be more complicated for a different setup configuration. Does that help (in the near term)?

[FrodoLoggins]

Ya that's the value I pay attention to for the first setup, but:

1: Minimum Z doesn't help on the second setup when my G54 is on the bottom of the part. 

2: Minimum Z does not take into account what previous operations do:

If Tool 2 mills 2" below the top of the stock (where my G54 is), Minimum Z will tell me that tool needs to stick out 2". But if Tool 1 decked off .5" of stock beforehand, I only need Tool 2 to stick out 1.5".  

Obviously good enough for now, but if at some point in the future something like this would be implemented this would really speed up my workflow and I'd feel better when the machine runs.

[ltomuta]

@FrodoLoggins I'm afraid the solution I suggested back then does not really hold valid in practice and the length you can calculate that way is less than optimal. At best you can compare the minZ (depth) a tool goes too and compare that with stock top to get a min length that is guaranteed not to hit the top of the part when going as low as it needs.

But that cannot be geometry aware (the tool may not go anywhere near part's highest point so does not need to clear it) not could it take into account what the previous tools did (which again could have eliminated stock you otherwise need to stay clear of).

Probably the only way to solve it is to define small tool lengths in the library which are guaranteed to cause a crash in even the most basic simulation. Then increase the len of the tool to the minimum safe length for each operation you use it in.

[dvd.mlm]

Talk to us about the OLD Fusion 360 Tool Library

If you un-checked “Tool Library” in Preferences -> Preview functionality, this means you’re using the old tool library. Our Customer Advocacy Team would like to know more about your experience.    

Take a brief survey and share your feedback. Optionally, you may speak with us further about this topic by indicating this at the end of the survey.  

Take the survey now

Thank you,

Fusion 360 Customer Advocacy and Product Research Teams