Tool library feeds and speeds

[Anonymous]

Hey guys just wondering if it’s possible to duplicate a tool in the new tool library, change the tools diameter and it holds the same surface feet per minute. So my question is when you change the tools diameter can you have it set so it adjusts the RPMs to maintain the same surface feet per minute. Say you have a .500 diameter end mill programmed at 500sfm then I change the diameter to .250 it’ll cut the SFM down to 250 instead of maintaining the 500 sfm. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated! Thank you! 

[mattdlr89 · Accepted solution]

Unfortunately it’s not possible at the moment. Not the first time it has been asked and the development team are aware so hopefully that’ll change in the future... 

[Anonymous]

I appreciate the info! Thank you!! 

[rhdfmail]

There is too often  I see things like this that makes me think that the developers has non or extremely little experience of machining. This is not a real problem as long they have people with this expertise giving them information about how the reality looks like.
It would be a simple thing to just look at a tool-manufacturers tooldata and then realize that series of tools often has the same recommended Vc within a range of diameters

[mattdlr89]

@rhdfmail 

yeah I think you’re right with that view. I think these things will get addressed eventually but it seems like AD like to prioritise “big” features over making the small stuff work well. 

I add tools to my library as I need them but typically stick with the same range of tools so I just duplicate the tool and change the size. It would make much more sense for the surface speed to follow over rather than rpm when I’ve inputted a SS to define it. 

[christopher.cooperVHK2N]

@mattdlr89 @Anonymous @rhdfmail Thanks for the post. We are aware of this issue and the potential value it would bring. It sounds like a very simple problem to fix on the face of it with the Vc value for tools being the same but that assumes people workflows are identical. 

Some users will create a tool and specify multiple presets by material type/coating/ insert grade so all preset Vcs will be different or the RPM has been selected as that specific user wants to specify the RPM used in the operation and post i.e Drilling operation.

Normally the Vc value given by the tooling manufacturers is a wide ranging value which depends on multiple factors like workholding and machine stability so users may initially choose the Vc value but once the process has been refined the actual value is input into the RPM.

With this in mind regarding your scenario would you want the Vc value to stay the same every time you duplicate a tool and change the diameter and have the RPM be dynamic in every case?

How would you expect a tool that has the RPM specified by the user to behave?

What would you expect to happens if a user has 10 presets 5 with Vc and 5 with RPM set?

I definitely think this is worth the time to get the expectations right and I wouldn't want to change the current behaviour without considering other users expectations.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Thanks

Chris

[mattdlr89]

Hi @christopher.cooperVHK2N 

Thanks for your response. For me the expected behaviour would be based on which value has been input.

For example when defining the speed, you have the option of Spindle Speed (rpm) or Surface Speed (m/min). Changing one of these will change the other. I think that the library should remember whether it was an rpm value or a surface speed value that was set. When duplicating the tool that should be the basis for the new pre-sets.

Let's say I have two pre-sets one set with an rpm and the other surface speed when duplicating the tool and changing the diameter, the pre-set with a surface speed defining it should update the rpm, whereas the other pre-set defined by an rpm should update the surface speed. I realise there is a fair bit of logic to get this to work but that is how I'd like them to work. 

Maybe others will have a different idea but that is how I'd like to see them work. 

[rhdfmail]

I might not speak for the majority here, but defining  endmills or inserts with different coatings as the same tools seems a bit odd . Techically its 2 different tools, so they should be defined as that. Then for those you add presets for different scenarios.

The manufacturers ideal-values is something you use as a gudeline and adapt to your reallity.
And the preset-data in your library should in many cases be seen as a more refined set of guidelines that you have to change at operation-level (OR end up with having one preset for every single scenario you have encountered)


A example of workflow: 
We use one brand/model of drills. We take the data from the manufacturer for all the different materials we use them in and add that as a preset.
When I add a new diameter to the library I  just duplicate a tool with a similar diameter since all the dimensions and data is in 9 out of 10 cases the same.
That way I get a drill with all the presets done.  (If there isn't a preset for that material I make a note that this should be added when I have time (as in: when machine is running))

Sure there is some adjustments sometimes  since we cant run a 0.5mm drill with the recomended 125 m/min in a machine with a 20k rpm spindle and stuff like that.

BUT when that is adjusted to a value we know is reasonable, there is a ~1 min task to add a 0,6mm drill to the library. add it to a operation and keep programming



 




 

[ktorokU233T]

@christopher.cooperVHK2N 

I agree 100% with @mattdlr89 . Whatever is input in one of those many entry boxes should remain as such in those entry boxes and appear back as it was entered when revisiting the cutting data tab of the tool library for that tool and selected preset a few clicks, minutes, hours, or days later. We are allowed to spend our time setting up our tools and presets in any manner we desire to suit our needs, work habits, employer requirements, and particular situations, only to find the entries reverted back to a very different from what we were allowed to put in default calculation at a later date. The behavior of the cutting data tab is very unlike the behavior one experiences in the tool tab on the manufacturing side. Set up your tool parameters in the tool tab on the manufacturing side as you wish, making any one of them a "hard" number or function of another parameter, and when you return to the tool tab of that operation a few clicks, minutes, hours, or days later they are still as you had set them up using the same functions, "hard" numbers, etc. None of the parameters on the manufacturing side reverts back to a predetermined "default" calculation after exiting and then later returning to the tool tab for that operation. Integrating the tool library interface work flow and feel to match the manufacturing tool tab would complete the loop, make for a highly integrated interface, and save some of us lost time on rechecking, reentering values we had hoped would already be there. I appreciate the amount of underlying work this would take to pass these values, be it "hard" numbers or formulas, from the tool library into the manufacturing side, but the amount of time and effort it would save on the end user adds up exponentially. In the current configuration, if I spend my employers time setting up my tool library with all the parameters the way we use them, I have to reenter all that information again on the manufacturing side tool tab.

Taking another clue from the manufacturing side tool tab, adding in the ability to right click in an entry box in the tool library cutting data tab and selecting "copy parameter name" so it could be pasted into another entry box would be another level of polishing to the tool library. This would make the feel of the interfaces act and feel the same and bring it another step to total integration. While it does not appear to do much at the current time, leaving hooks into the machine definition configuration parameters for future use would also be an awesome forethought.

Keep up the good work.

[stteng]

Hey guys it’s lefty1316 under my new account sorry for not being more involved in this post. Everyone is making great points about the issues I’m running into.

Does anyone know if the fusion team has made any headway on this yet? I totally agree with what rhdfmail said about workflow examples.

In my case all of my tools are 4mm and under so they are all on common shanks with consistent necking. So when I’m making a new tool I often just duplicate the tool and change the diameter. With that being said within each tool I have 4/5 different pre set cutting parameters. I do a lot of hardmilling and each type of material requires specific cutting parameters. Some get ran at 200sfm and some are 350sfm and everything in between. It becomes a hassle having to adjust each pre set each time when making a new tool… even if we had the ability to select multiple tools at once to apply the cutting condition presets would be nice.

[christopher.cooperVHK2N]

@Anonymous The detail and feedback on this thread has been captured by myself and discussed with the PM the dev team. I will reach out to this thread and other stakeholders if I am unclear on certain workflows but I definitely feel the pain from all the users here and will prioritise accordingly.

Thanks

[grad2]

Is it possible to change all SFM by material? Like, reduce SFM for aluminum across all tools?