Tool collision with fixture

[SGoldthwaite]

In this chess piece, I have the round base defined as the fixture.   When using morphed spiral, the tool is going into the fixture.  See picture.   In my setup I enabled Shaft & Holder.  I tried Pull-Away mode and Trimmed, but neither solved the problem.  How do I prevent this?   I attached my F3D file.   

Also, I have a 4th rotary axis (rotates on the X-axis).  In the same setup is there a way to rotate the part and mill other parts of the workpiece?  I played around with Tool Orientation setting, but I couldn't figure it out.

[programming2C78B]

you will have to limit it via boundaries or avoid surfaces.


Simply change the Z in your tool orientation to how you want the rotary to position itself. What part do you not understand?

[SGoldthwaite]

Thanks.  I'm surprised Fusion doesn't just automatically avoid the fixture.   I changed tool containment to Inside boundary, and that keeps the tool from hitting the base/fixture.  But it also reduces machining other areas, which I can live with, but don't prefer.  I tried adding the base to the avoid surfaces option and it made it worse, the tool goes over the base and it looks like it's doing some air cutting. This is with tool containment outside boundary. See picture. 

I did figure out the rotation question by selecting a different z-axis.  I don't know why I had trouble the first time I tried, it's pretty straight forward.

[programming2C78B]

Right now Fixtures are only used for collision detection, not auto-avoidance. It is on the roadmap to start including the fixture in 3D toolpaths as "avoid" regions. 

[SGoldthwaite]

That will be a really useful feature when it's added to Fusion.  It is odd in the picture above that it's doing air cutting on the base since I marked this as an avoid surface.

[HughesTooling]

Can you share the design? What I think should work is have just the head and create your setup and stock, then in the machining ops add the base under model. Machining should be confined to the stock area and the added base should be avoided.

[seth.madore]

---

@SGoldthwaite wrote:

That will be a really useful feature when it's added to Fusion. 

---

It's not too far away... 😉

[SGoldthwaite]

I shared the F3D file in my original post.  I have made changes since; attached is the latest. 

[HughesTooling]

---

@SGoldthwaite wrote:

I shared the F3D file in my original post.  I have made changes since; attached is the latest. 

---

I guess you're using the insider version so I can't open the file.

[SGoldthwaite]

---

@HughesTooling wrote:

 

---

I guess you're using the insider version so I can't open the file.

---

I am in the insider program.  I didn't think about that.  I don't there's a way for me to save in an older version.

They way I have it now is - In my Setup for the Model section, I have just the knight's body.   It's actually two bodies, the horse's body and the horse's mane.  I have the base as the fixture.  In my machining operation,  I have Model section enabled.  For Model Surfaces I have the base body selected and I enabled "Include Setup Model"  See screenshots.

[HughesTooling]

---

@SGoldthwaite wrote:

---

@HughesTooling wrote:

 

---

I guess you're using the insider version so I can't open the file.

---

I am in the insider program.  I didn't think about that.  I don't there's a way for me to save in an older version.

They way I have it now is - In my Setup for the Model section, I have just the knight's body.   It's actually two bodies, the horse's body and the horse's mane.  I have the base as the fixture.  In my machining operation,  I have Model section enabled.  For Model Surfaces I have the base body selected and I enabled "Include Setup Model"  See screenshots.

---

Sounds like what I was trying to say in post #6. Does it work?

[SGoldthwaite]

---

@HughesTooling wrote:

---

---

Sounds like what I was trying to say in post #6. Does it work?

---

I think it worked, although it's not the most efficient toolpath.  As you can see from the screenshot in my last post, the toolpath does go over the top part of the base/fixture, but it seems to be air cutting.  I don't know why it's even going in that area.  I won't know for sure until I actually machine it for real.

[HughesTooling]

---

@SGoldthwaite wrote:

---

@HughesTooling wrote:

 

---

---

You might get a more efficient toolpath if you set the machining boundary to None and stock to rest like you have it. You might want to create another base with a bit of an offset to give a bit more clearance. Also make sure the staydown distance is not too big to stop the tool trying to move around the bottom of the base, could even make the bottom of the base longer to stop this. So maybe make a slightly bigger diameter base to leave a bit more clearance but also an extra 10mm or more material on the bottom just for the fixture used in the machining ops.

[programming2C78B]

If thats an adaptive, you can make it not do 99% of those retracts!

[SGoldthwaite]

---

@programming2C78B wrote:

If that's an adaptive, you can make it not do 99% of those retracts!

---

It's adaptive roughing.  How do I reduce the retracts?  I have retracts policy set to Min.  Stay down distance is 2 inch and stay down level is most.  Here are my settings:

[HughesTooling]

Because you are using a boundary you are in effect machining a pocket, if you can set the machining boundary to none it should clear from the outside and produce a more efficient toolpath.

[SGoldthwaite]

---

@HughesTooling wrote:

Because you are using a boundary you are in effect machining a pocket, if you can set the machining boundary to none it should clear from the outside and produce a more efficient toolpath.

---

Thanks.  I'll give that a try.  This toolpath takes forever to generate, over 30 minutes (with or without the boundary).

[programming2C78B]

Old computer? Consider splitting the model in half and programming the other side via a pattern or smoothing out your mesh. I imagine this is an STL you converted into a solid? 

[SGoldthwaite]

---

@programming2C78B wrote:

Old computer? Consider splitting the model in half and programming the other side via a pattern or smoothing out your mesh. I imagine this is an STL you converted into a solid? 

---

My computer is pretty beefy - Lenovo ThinkStation P520c,  Intel Xeon W-2123 Processor with vPro (4 cores, 3.60Ghz, 8.25 MB cache), 64 GB RAM.

I did convert STL to a body.  I did some facet reducing on the STL before I imported it to Fusion.  I wish I could have a version that was created in Fusion with the surfacing tools, but I don't have the skill to do that.   I didn't think about patterning, that's a good idea.