Warning: Toolpath is empty. Try checking the rest machining, collision avoidance, or machining boundaries and height settings.

[FrodoLoggins]

So on the below toolpath [or any/followup adaptive] in setup "Knob] 2": Defining my stock as "Remaining from previous" I am unable to generate the toolpath.

Keep getting this warning:

The issue appears to be due to the rest machining setting as if I define the stock from "silhouette" the toolpath generates:

There definitely is stock remaining from the previous op, it looks like this:

For the first adaptive I can get it to generate by choosing the source of "From setup stock":

But again, any proceeding adaptive won't generate when choosing "From previous operation(s)".

[seth.madore]

My man. You've got a lot of components and Setups. Have you considered using tools such as Derive or XREF to keep things better organized?
The reason the toolpath is failing is because there are components ahead of it that've broken the Rest Machining algorithm. Is it a bug? Technically, most likely. Is this a normal use case? Typically, no. 
I was able to get a toolpath by removing all the other Setups (for the other components). 

The options at this point is to either adopt a more organized/proper workflow or use "From Setup Stock"

But seriously, consider Deriving your components into a new document, it's going to greatly improve file management

 

[FrodoLoggins]

I like to mill as much with the same 9 or 10 tools so I can just touch them all off, walk away, and know I'm not forgetting to touch something off. If I use the derive functionality is there a risk of me making tool 1 on part A a .5" end mill but tool 1 on Part B a different tool or can I keep each tool linked somehow?

I can understand that's a lot of setups but if the setup is just trying to carry over stock from one previous setup I don't think it makes sense that it gets confused.

[seth.madore]

The tools won't be linked, but that doesn't prevent you from using templates or simply CTRL+C/V (or CMD+C) and pasting toolpaths between files. (again, not linked, but will be based on your last program)

The issue we are seeing with the Rest Machining actually originates outside of Autodesk, as we use a 3rd party service for this calculation. There are known limitations on how many times one can pass back the Rest model and Setup models and expect a valid return. In an ideal world, we'd have this solved internally, but there are often much larger projects to focus on. If one is using the same model in every setup, it's handled well (I've not had an issue with 7+ Setups for a single component), but when it comes to separate models and multiple setups, it falls apart after 3 or 4 components.