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.

[seth.madore]

@mattdlr89 is correct, that is the mechanism for defining the "space between"

[ltomuta]

Once I define a shoulder length higher than flute length all the shaft customization is done above the shoulder. See below  the two segments I need to be below the shaft, they are modeled above it.

Here shoulder length = 30, flute length = 4

Only if shoulder length = flute length = 4 the segments are modeled in the correct position

[mattdlr89]

Ah yes, that's how I had to model mine. 

It would probably make sense if it behaved the other way round. To me the "shaft diameter" is the diameter of the bit in the tool holder. 

[ltomuta]

Indeed, the shaft above the shoulder is the boring part as any geometry still relevant above that point is in the holder side.

The part of the body worth modeling in detail would be between tip and shoulder (or between flute and shoulder) while keeping the shoulder length properly defined as it an useful input in expressions.

That's valid for all the tools I ever tried to model. Not that many though. 🙂

[FrodoLoggins]

Sorry I mean I'd like to know the minimum distance between the bottom of the tool and the holder necessary to clear the top of the stock. Not the largely arbitrary (for our shop) number I put in the "length below holder" field.

"Hmm, this tool has a flute length of .5". Eh it's gonna stick out about .625"". That's how I treat that field as we're a job shop that breaks down our tools after just about every job. I only ever edit that field if I run a CAM simulation and there's a collision.

I don't measure how far my tool needs to go and then edit that field in the tool library. I choose an arbitrary number that allows the flute/coating to stick out the holder a bit, set that and forget about it.

If I specify a tool sticks out 1.5" in CAM but it only needs to stick out 1.433" to clear the part, I'm not going to edit the tool in the tool library as that's a waste of time that I'll inevitably need to change the next time I run that tool. If the CAM simulation shows a collision, I'll edit the field and have it stick out more in the tool library. If I run the simulation and there's no collision I could totally stick it out 1.5", but I'd rather stick it out 1.433" for slightly better tool life.

[ltomuta]

For a minimum length below holder calculation you could do some math inside the setup sheet using the rather unreliable topHeight_value and bottomHeight_value params for all the operations in which the tool is used. Or, set the default value for each tool the actual minimum (same as tool_shoulderLength) and then make program level adjustments once you run into stock collisions.

In our team we have the frequently used tools set in the libraries and on machine at a "optimal" length and we don't waste time moving them up or down. Not in the library and not on machine). This gives the advantage of being able to use expressions to calculate how low can a tool go on the piece and on how many steps. Less frequent tools are changed in case of conflicts and machinist must always obey what the setup sheet says. So for as the current setup sheet is good enough.

[ltomuta]

@FrodoLoggins I just realized that I also have a problem with tool's length below holder. As said, most of the time we have "good" values defined in the library and changes are seldom.

However, when I print a setup sheet asking for a tool length of 100mm there is no way to tell if that is 100mm because I specifically need 100 or is 100 because that's what the library had and it is good enough for me but 80 would also do.

And now, at least some times, I have the same problem you have. The info in that field is good (i.e. if satisfied the program will likely not hit the fixtures as simulated) but if it cannot be satisfied (currently available tool not that long)  then there's no way to tell if that is critical or not.

Ideally, the setup sheet should be able to flag that value is changed/mandatory (bold?) vs. default/informative (normal font). And that info would have to be captured somehow by the tool library.

[quadfluiddynamics]

I am not a fan of the new tool library... I think it sucks! The old version was easier to use .. Why do they have to mess with stuff? In  the old version you could actually read the feed,speed, menu windows. 

[christopher.cooperVHK2N]

@quadfluiddynamics Thanks for the feedback.  You can still use the old library by unchecking the Tool Library option in preferences.

The team are going to spend sometime shortly completing small user improvements that we have listed from listening to our internal and external stakeholders. If you or any of the other users on this thread have specific improvements that you feel we missed the target on then please share them over the next few weeks.

For example, tasks that we are looking to assess include;

• Increasing the density of the tool library (Make it easier to read).
• Default to the active document when entering the library through an operation.
• Have the ability to re order presets in the cutting data tab.

These are just a few and we are listening to the community so I am happy to consider any improvements that we do not have already.

It would be really helpful to gather the data if the problems/improvements are offered as bullet points as above.

Thanks 

Chris

Tagging other contributors to the thread here for visibility @veso58S5W @ltomuta @FrodoLoggins @mattdlr89 

[Anonymous]

Please oh please make it faster!!!!

[ltomuta]

My main pains are in the filterin area. I don't want to always select the desired operator when using Diameter search. Just asume that the last I used is good this time too. If I don't need a diamter equal with something, I change the option, but chances are that this time too I will look for some exact diamter tool and equal is good for me.

Also, if I start looking for a tool within tange of 7-8mm and only then I realise that I'm looking at mills and not drills, changing the tool type should not reset my diameter criterea because the range is good, I just want to see drills in that range.

And please make the tool ESC-apable. I should always be able to close any dialog with Esc (tools, templates, posts, nc programs ... all!)

If you can't remove tool duplication (between document level and system level libraries) maybe you could somehow find a way to update a tool in all libraries when something like feends and speeds change. Say tool is take fom library X and then used in document Y. If I notice a problem and correct it, I will likely do it in the document side but the tool library should notice that now the copy from library X is out of sync and prompt me to update the tool there as well.

Holder change at document level too, with either loading all available holders or have a short list defined, like only those ever used.

Dynamic tool numbering would be nice. When I change a tool's number I'd like the library to be smart and say "this week, your team mainly placed this tool in T22 (90%)". This way it increases the chance of not having to move and re-measure tools that are already on the machine from a previous program.

[ltomuta]

Also, are these high precision numbers intentional/useful?

"66.72742796224722 m/min"

[christopher.cooperVHK2N]

@ltomuta Thankyou for taking the time to comment. I will work through the suggestions today and comeback with any questions.

Thanks

[mattdlr89]

---

@ltomuta wrote:

Also, are these high precision numbers intentional/useful?

"66.72742796224722 m/min"

---

I think it comes from binary to decimal conversion. I wish this was fixed it is definitely not useful. For example say I am trying to filter for a 7mm tool I select the filter, exact size 7mm, but no tool appears under my criteria? Turns out that the tool is actually 7.00000000000000001mm and therefore doesn't match my "exact size" criteria. 

Please fix this. 

[christopher.cooperVHK2N]

@ltomuta 

So after spending sometime looking into the suggestions you put forward I have actioned the following;

• I have created a task ref CAM-20133 which defaults all values in the filters to equal.
• I have created a task ref CAM-18859 which closes the tool library on escape.
• I have contacted the development team and we will look into the rounding of numbers both in the geometry and filters.
• I need to speak to additional stakeholders regarding not selecting a tool type. The team say it is possible but I want to ensure that it is consistent. 
• We are already exploring ways to push presets to a new tool.

You also mentioned applying a holder at document level - You can do this by selecting the document banner in the centre panel and right clicking. Is that not good enough? 

Thanks again for the feedback it has been very useful.

[ltomuta]

What I meant about the holder is that at times I do want to choose a
different holder for a tool but only in that particular program.

So if on an operation I hit "Edit tool" I should be able to edit the holder
info as well. Currently this is not possible as the "Edit tool" does not
see any library that contains holders.

Now, as discussed above, once the tool saved the library should prompt to
migrate holder info to the source library but I should have an option to
say no.

[christopher.cooperVHK2N]

@ltomuta Ah I see thanks for the clarification. This has come up a couple of times over the last week and I have already a task for this. It has not been assessed by the team so at this point I am currently unsure about how much work it would be.

The suggestion to push the changes is new so I will discuss with the relevant stakeholders.

Thanks

[Anonymous]

Is it possible to change the Spindel speed to be a function of Surface speed and Plunge feed rate to be a function of Feed per revolution as default, in the Cutting data tab?

[christopher.cooperVHK2N]

@Anonymous This is not currently possible. We have not had a user case for this workflow.

What advantage would this give you/others?

Thanks

[Dave.SendItCNC]

If you need to apply these kind of math functions a possible workflow is to export the tool library as a .tsv file, edit it in excel, resave as tab separated, and then re-import into fusion. A touch tedious and error prone, but it can be helpful.