Tool Orientation Flip Axis Frustration 3+2

[26-Taylor]

I've been battling this one for a while and have not found a solution yet.

I have a part in a 5 axis trunnion (A is tilt and C is rotary). I need to drill a hole in the A-90. C0. orientation but Fusion posts A90. C180. In many cases this is 6-in-one half-dozen-in-another but because my part doesn't clear the max swing diameter of the C axis I can't spin the part around to C180.

It seams to me that the "Flip Axis" when setting up tool orientation would allow me to switch between A-90. C0. and A90. C180. but this isn't the case. Regardless of how I set up the tool orientation I get the same posted code. I have tried several post processors and have even tried using the machine library/configuration with no luck. I should note that the "Flip Axis" works as expected for the Z axis, but flipping X or Y seems to do nothing.

Has anyone else ran into this and found a solution? At the very least can someone educate me on what the "Flip Axis" option does? 

Unfortunately I'm working on a proprietary design so no f3d file but please let me know if you need more detail. Thanks in advance for any input.

[mattdlr89 · Accepted solution]

I’ve run into this problem too. It depends on the post so I’m not sure what you’re running. If you’re familiar with modding your post you can just limit the A axis to only go 0 to +90 or something like that way it won’t be possible for it to output A-90 or limit C depending on what you need to achieve. 

It was discussed in a little more detail for a Haas post in this thread:

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-360-manufacture/haas-trt-160-ability-to-force-a-90-instead-of-...

[26-Taylor]

Fantastic! That finally posted the code I was looking for. It is a bit of a workaround but much better than the alternative of setting a new offset each time you run into it. I've only tested this out by editing the post processor directly, I'll follow the other thread you mentioned to setup user defined min/max when I have spare time. Hopefully a solution will be implemented that doesn't require post processor editing in the future. 

Thanks for the input!