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: 

A contour was not machined because the given lead parameters would cause a collision!

12 REPLIES 12
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 13
jaredSADUH
358 Views, 12 Replies

A contour was not machined because the given lead parameters would cause a collision!

If I turn on Wear compensation I get the above mentioned error.  There should be plenty of room for this tool to perform this simple contour and for wear to be turned on.  I've adjusted settings for quite a while without any success.  As a MasterCAM user for 20 years, I find these incredibly simple tasks to be problematic in Fusion360 when they don't seem to work "normally"

 

My lead-in/lead-out parameters are set to have enough room to sweep in, contour, and sweep out.  I do not get the error unless I turn "wear" on.  .218 dia end mill in a .250 wide slot that I would just like to contour...Very simple operation that I've done countless times in MCam with zero problems, yet constantly an issue in F360.  Any tips are greatly appreciated.

12 REPLIES 12
Message 2 of 13
DarthBane55
in reply to: jaredSADUH

We would need your file to see the issue, but I get those errors often as well, and usually even if it does not seem right, the arc is too big or the length is too long.  Try reducing to something ridiculous like a radius 0.010" and length 0.010" and arc sweep 30deg or whatever, until you get a path, and you will see how tight it gets.  You can then grow your lead-in from there.  This will give you a better visual of why it's happening, but I find that usually it is happening for a valid reason.  Without your file it's the best trick I could give you, try it!

Message 3 of 13
jaredSADUH
in reply to: jaredSADUH

Hey, thanks.  I've gone as ridiculously low as .001/.001 on lead in/out radius and distance and still get the same error.  I duplicated the pocket path I got to work for roughing and only shut off "stock to leave" and turned on "wear" and got the error.  Then tried a simple contour with no success.  Yeah, I *could* use a smaller tool, but don't want to and *shouldn't* have to.  

 

File attached.  Thanks!

Message 4 of 13

Make sure your lead in length, radius, and max tool compensation amount are less then 0.032" 

Please click "Accept Solution" if what I wrote solved your issue!
Message 5 of 13
DarthBane55
in reply to: jaredSADUH

I looked at your file, and it looks like your part broke Fusion lol.  I cannot make it work either... well I can, but I would not release it like what I did.  I changed the lead-in radius to 0.125, with 2deg angle, and 0.005 length.  I picked a start point, but it puts it somewhere it wants to, completely ignoring the start point.  Also, this lead-in is tiny, I cannot make it bigger.  It is basically right against the part almost, there is plenty of room, but it won't do a 3deg, 2 is the limit lol.

I did remove the 0.010 radius compensation you had, I always leave that to zero, I found out this does some undesirable things at times, like making some radius bigger than the model to accommodate the value put in here.  I just always leave that at zero.  I think it is useful maybe for people who don't know what tool they will endup using once on the machine, so this gives some allowance, but it changed radius... I would stay clear of putting any value in that field.  

I also had to remove the 0.003 overlap, it would not work without that, so again, there is no valid reason for it not to work with an overlap.

Basically, this part broke it, it just does not work whatsoever in any way that would be useful.  I hope someone from Autodesk has a good look at it.

Message 6 of 13
jaredSADUH
in reply to: jaredSADUH

Well thanks for taking a look! HA! Honestly I've done so many things trying to get it to work I don't even know where I left off.  Luckily the slot tolerance isn't fussy so I can get a tool path to cut it, but I won't really have any control over the width once at the machine.  I had the same issue with choosing a start point/lead-in location, tried larger and smaller overlaps (I always like having a little something to avoid that little potential scallop), keep tool down, various compensation radius allowances (if set to zero, will wear compensations still work? hmmm) etc.... I appreciate you taking a look and trying though!

 

Message 7 of 13
seth.madore
in reply to: DarthBane55

I've been loosely following this thread. @DarthBane55 what's the primary issue; not being able to accurately place a start point?

 

They did change it to "Preferred Entry Point", as there are times when one wants to select a point that's not actually attainable. That doesn't mean there's no room for improvement in this area, though.


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 8 of 13
jaredSADUH
in reply to: seth.madore

The main issue being that I could not generate a path using "wear" in the slot, regardless of whatever I changed the lead-in/lead-out to.  I have even duplicated my roughing path and only turned off "stock to leave" and changed "in computer" to "wear", this would cause the path to fail.  I also couldn't get a simple 2D contour to generate with "wear" turned on, regardless of my lead settings.

Message 9 of 13
DarthBane55
in reply to: seth.madore

Hi @seth.madore , it's like @jaredSADUH said.  It seems impossible to get a lead-in when using wear comp, and also not possible to set the preferred entry point.  There is "lots" of room for a proper lead-in, but the software won't do it, when using wear.

Message 10 of 13
DarthBane55
in reply to: DarthBane55

hey @jaredSADUH 

I have a work around for you, see picture below.

It seems that the looping around might be confusing for Fusion... so instead of a closed contour, do an opened contour, and leave out the straight line where you see my lead-in/out.

Then, add the tangential fragment extensions under the passes tab.  I added 0.42" so it creates a small overlap like you wanted.  It will then start there because it's the start of the opened chain, and you can do what you want with the lead-in, it works.

Not ideal, still a bug, just giving you a work around so that you'll get cutter comp in the machine.  Lucky you had a straight line this time, because it wouldn't work on a curve I don't think, I think the extensions would be straight lines.

I hope you can use that!

1.png

 

EDIT: If you didn't have a straight line, you could make a sketch to draw the curve where you would want to start and end, and split it in the middle by let's say 0.0001", it would be an opened loop and you'd never see the difference.

Again, I insist that this is still a bug, I'm only giving a work around.

Message 11 of 13
seth.madore
in reply to: jaredSADUH

I've opened up CAM-47599 to investigate the issues with this part, thanks for raising them here!


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 12 of 13
jaredSADUH
in reply to: DarthBane55

Hey! That would work! Like you said, not exactly correct but that will get the job done and give me a little flexibility at the control. Thanks for the help here!

Message 13 of 13
jaredSADUH
in reply to: jaredSADUH

Just updating this thread to say that this issue still happens when I turn "wear" on with some pockets.  In this latest case its with an "open" style pocket.

Screen Shot 2023-09-15 at 2.07.55 PM.png

Screen Shot 2023-09-15 at 2.07.44 PM.png

  

Screen Shot 2023-09-15 at 2.08.18 PM.png

Screen Shot 2023-09-15 at 2.08.24 PM.png

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report