Community
Fusion Manufacture
Talk shop with the Fusion (formerly Fusion 360) Manufacture Community. Share tool strategies, tips, get advice and solve problems together with the best minds in the industry.
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

3d Tool path help needed, too many points

6 REPLIES 6
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 7
siraig
570 Views, 6 Replies

3d Tool path help needed, too many points

Fusion gurus!  I need some help... I have a machine capable of generating great surface finished, but am struggling to achieve that on this part with my mediocre levels of fusion/cam/cnc.  I have attached a copy of my part and would love if someone could help me out. 

 

My issue lies in the ramp AND 3d contour strategy.  I'm trying to use it as a finishing strategy, but it is generating too many points due to constant z ramp (smoothing/tolerance changes resulted in worse results as well as calling g187 p3).  I would like to be able to 3d contour the entire part.  Im a bit confused why I cannot get a toolpath to park the tool at a given z depth, and profile the part generating 8 lines of code (4 radii and 4 lines - aka 4 calls of g1, and 4 calls of g2).  Seems this should be way easier to generate then what I am getting.

 

surely there has to be a way?

6 REPLIES 6
Message 2 of 7
mjohnson72RFD
in reply to: siraig

I used the new blend toolpath,(you have to turn it on in manufacturing options in preferences)

the toolpath is in this file, should give you what you want, however it does follow the contour at the bottom instead of jumping around. you can play with the leadins if you dont like them. I didnt have any luck with any of the other toolpaths as far as doing single steps without a z moves except in the leadins. 

Message 3 of 7
seth.madore
in reply to: siraig

For Z level finishing, 3D Contour should do the best job. You didn't have Smoothing turned on, which was why you were ending up with a crapton of points. Also, file size was 1.3MB. Turn Smoothing on, set your Tolerance to .0001" and your Smoothing to .001", your file size will drop down to 170kb and your point distribution will look like this:

2020-03-15_10h19_33.png

 

Do note though; smoothing IS NOT applied to linking or lead moves, so there will be many "non-contact" points that are not shown in the image above.


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 4 of 7
siraig
in reply to: seth.madore

Embarassing.. couldve swore i had smoothing on.  You are correct, but mine is showing a pile of leads, while yours shows none.  What causes/controls that?

 

Also my brain has got to understand...why in the world would a toolpath ever default to generating literally thousands of points to do what 8 could?  What is the reason? surely there is one.

Message 5 of 7
seth.madore
in reply to: siraig

Oh, the leads are still there, I just have them turned on in the display:
2020-03-16_08h21_35.png

 

It's often the great annoyance between FingerCAM and any other CAM system. Our minds know that "this" (whatever "this" is at the moment) can be solved in 2/3 lines of code, but why oh why does it take 20 lines for a CAM system to solve. Whoever finds the solution to that issue is going to be a very rich person....


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 6 of 7
siraig
in reply to: seth.madore

Hey Seth,

 

Take a look at the screenshot you posted in reply to my original post.  Do you see the "rouge" points near the small flats on the taper?  In simulation (and in aluminum 😁), those points are causing ugly undercuts.  I played with smoothing a bit, but could not get them to go away completely.  Upon further inspection, if you toggle to a "squared up" view you can see the points at the tangents of the radii are not aligned axially.  I appreciate your response to my "why is this so difficult"...even if I still can't understand why haha

 

Also to my surprise, more then likely tool related, the surface finish of the part (sans undercuts) was not any better then the 1,000 point ramp.  Gonna try some other cutters.  Will need to be doing similar in magnesium in a few weeks, want better finished.  Brand new Haas, so it should be capable of better I'd think.  

 

Thanks for all your help, your posts are always worthy of reading.

Message 7 of 7
davidturnswood
in reply to: siraig

Why would one want thousands of tool points?   Well, I am working with a 20 year old industrial cartesian robot that wasn't exactly intended for milling, although it is very capable of it.  Although my robot controller can perform circular movements, I have no post processor for it (I am not skilled in the programming department).   I was however, able to write a simple script that reformats fusion's xyz post to something my robot controller understands. 

 

I'm building cast iron foundry patterns for a wood stove.  While I would prefer arc movements and fewer tool points, I don't have that option right now, and some of these surfaces are very detailed and complex.  Reducing the number of points means I don't have the detail I want.  

 

In a perfect world I'd find a way to filter the points I have so my robot wouldn't get bogged down with too many - or be inaccurate with too few.  I realize the smoothing tolerance and the tool at the bottom of the parallel passes that allows you to create more detail in corners allow for that, but it is still tricky to get it right.  I think the only way to really get good at this is to make lots and lots of mistakes, mill a part, and try again.  I'm lucky that I can do my parts in wood.  

 

In the pattern I am milling at this moment there are likely too many locations.  I should have looked at the points more carefully before posting the tool path.  As a result my machine is running too slow - or too jerky as I turn the speed up.   

 

Good luck! 


David

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Post to forums