See below screen shot. Normally the stock you see as you add new strategies is decent quality, ie you can see things like counter sinks clearly. As of 2 hours ago this is now not the case. Has something been updated or is there a setting where I can change this? My accuracy within simulation is already set to the top end of the slider, but this isn't from within the simulation tab.
To add some more confusion to this. I just went back to a project I did yesterday and it still looks completely normal.
Also, the project with the previous issue now has another issue where zooming in makes the 'stock' go completely dark.
Hmm, that does look rather poor. Could you share your Fusion file?
File > Export > Save to local folder, return to thread and attach the .f3d file in your reply
I am having the same problem with the in process stock being of such a low quality that any following Rest Mill operations are unusable.
Is there a way to up the polygon count for In process stock for larger jobs ?
Would you be able to share your Fusion file here?
File > Export > Save to local folder, return to thread and attach the .f3d/.f3z file in your reply.
@haveoneforme wrote:
I am having the same problem with the in process stock being of such a low quality that any following Rest Mill operations are unusable.
Unless I'm seriously mistaken (and have been for years), the In-Process Stock doesn't have an impact on the quality of the Rest Machining process. Rest Machining is taken from an STL (mesh) that is generated in the background, the IPS is a rough representation of said STL file.
Unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case with the results I am having, I've updated the file with two identical rest machining toolpaths, the only difference is one references the previous toolpath as remaining stock (In Process) and the other references an exported stock mesh model taken from the first two operations.
As you can see the In Process referenced toolpath is not correct.
You are right Seth, rest machining does not use the IPS meshes. You can prove this to yourself by turning off the automatic generation if in-process stock and deleting all of the meshes. Now you will see that all toolpaths show that there is no in-process stock. Regenerate the rest-machining toolpath, which will work, and there will still be no in-process stock on any toolpath.
The rest-machining meshes are calculated by the same code in a very similar way and they are cached in the same directory as the IPS meshes though. The tolerances used are similar but not quite the same.
You don't have direct control over the tolerance but you can influence it by changing the value of the "Surface Triangulation Tolerance" on the rest toolpath. I think you need to use Compare and Edit to do this. Reducing this tolerance will make the rest stock "better".
However, it might not help much in this case. Your part, and thus your stock, is very long and skinny. We're aware that there is an issue with IPS and rest stock with stock like this. The resolution that Fusion chooses is based on the longest dimension of the stock. That's a poor choice when there is a large difference between the largest dimension and the smallest dimension. Reducing the "Surface Triangulation Tolerance" might not be able to completely compensate for this.
Thank you Brek for explaining why it is not In Process Stock that is causing the poor quality Rest machining toolpaths in Fusion.
I have updated the model so it doesn't look "long and skinny" and improved the "Surface Triangulation Tolerance" ten fold. Both had no visible effect on the quality of the toolpath.
Do I have to start a new thread on Fusion not being able use rest machining on larger components ?
Again thank you to yourself and Seth for your help.
Have you tried adjusting the Triangulation Tolerance in Compare and Edit?
Yes I have increased the tolerance ten fold and unfortunately it has had no effect on the toolpath quality.
The problem does not just effect the toolpath quality but also the simulation quality.
I've attached the file
Great, thanks for sharing your file and raising this issue. We're having discussions on how we can improve the results, but it's early stages yet.
I'll admit, I wasn't aware of the link between Rest Machining and "size of part".....
