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: 

Deburr toolpath feedback #1 - general observations

9 REPLIES 9
Reply
Message 1 of 10
DarthBane55
460 Views, 9 Replies

Deburr toolpath feedback #1 - general observations

Hi, I assume Autodesk wants some feedback on new toolpaths they introduce... so to whom it may concern at Autodesk:

Here are some general observations, after this post, I will post a few specific case issues.

-1st observation, this is a huge time saver, big time, thank you!

-Wishlist:

1-Add a boundary selection, so that we can limit the auto-deburr to a section of a large part.  I can see that sometimes on a part with so many edges, manual select will be painful, but at the same time we may not want to deburr the entire part in 1 shot.

2-Add a hole filter, with diameter range.  Sometimes holes are already deburred with a spot drill, so we don't want to go back again with the deburring path (when in automatic mode).

3-I realize that this toolpath is meant to go under the extensions.  But would you consider allowing the 3-axis only mode for the base commercial license, exactly like you do on 3dContour, flow, blend, etc?

 

General Issues:

1-Climb and conventional cutting are reversed (when choosing climb, it does conventional, and vice-versa).

2-Issue with chamfers that are modeled on.  This toolpath will chamfer those twice, picking the top edge and then the bottom edge.  Maybe adding an option to skip the modeled chamfers would be good (I have seen it on other software using this ModuleWorks toolpath and it works great!).

 

Thank you very much for adding this toolpath, it is amazing!

9 REPLIES 9
Message 2 of 10
peter.lockyer
in reply to: DarthBane55

Hi @DarthBane55, many thanks for your feedback.

 

Regarding your wishlist:

 

  1. I can completely understand your reasoning for requesting a boundary to limit the automatic detection.  ModuleWorks do not provide this at the moment, but I can make a feature request to them.
  2. Regarding the hole filter, we'd also need to submit a feature request to ModuleWorks, as there's no such functionality provided within the Deburr strategy at the moment.  Other ModuleWorks strategies do offer filtering though.
  3. I think this is unlikely as this is a 'whole part strategy', which falls into the extension criteria.  However, this is a commercial question, so I'm not qualified to give any official answer on this.

Regarding your issues:

 

  1. Yes, this doesn't work correctly at the moment.  Looking at ModuleWorks own User Interface for this strategy, they do not expose Climb/Conventional, and I think for the full release of this strategy we'll follow their lead.
  2. In terms of modelled chamfers, I'm not aware of any ModuleWorks capability to skip modelled chamfers.  They have an option to 'Include unsharp edges', which we've labelled 'Include rounded edges', which recognises modelled fillets < 1mm.  Of course, you could increase the minimum edge angle to > 45 degrees to not detect chamfers on square edges.


Peter Lockyer

Software Development Manager, Fusion 360 Manufacturing and PowerMill

Message 3 of 10
DarthBane55
in reply to: peter.lockyer

Hi @peter.lockyer , and thank you for your answers.

The reason I put this wishlist and issues out, is because I have tried another CAM system, which I think I cannot name here, and said CAM system uses ModuleWorks toolpaths, but they seem to add their own thing to the toolpaths provided.  All the filters I put in my list do exist in that software, so if they are not provided by ModuleWorks, I assumed that the CAM software company is able to add their own functionality in their interface of the provided path.  Meaning, they added the boundary, the hole filters, and the modeled chamfers themselves in the ModuleWorks path.  Either that, or ModuleWorks has different level of the same toolpaths depending on the license that Autodesk acquired.  I really have no idea how it works, it might be possible to add your own stuff, or not.  

In any case, this toolpath is definitely a great addition, and I appreciate you taking a look at my feedback!

Message 4 of 10
seth.madore
in reply to: DarthBane55


@DarthBane55 wrote:

..I have tried another CAM system, which I think I cannot name here,


I don't see why you can't name the platform 🤔


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 5 of 10
DarthBane55
in reply to: seth.madore

Hi @seth.madore 

I don't know lol, I just figured Autodesk didn't want us writing that for some reason.  I tried a few CAM softwares last year (decided to stay with Inventor CAM/Fusion).  I believe the one that had those options was SolidCam for Inventor.  I also tried MasterCam, but can't remember if it had those filters or not.  I might be mixing them up too.  They both use ModuleWorks, so it was interesting to compare the 2 side by side at the same time.  In the various toolpaths I tried, they both seem to add their own filters and options, tho the toolpath itself is driven by ModuleWorks, it was obvious that in general, the result was pretty much identical, but with a few different options here and there which did affect the toolpaths.

Message 6 of 10

No stock to leave, hmmm like 2D chamfer

 

Is that planned? Would be very advantageous to use and have access to

Message 7 of 10
DarthBane55
in reply to: DarthBane55

Another tidbit of feedback:

1.png

Look at the chamfer size... who measures a chamfer like that?  Nobody.  When you say you want a chamfer 0.010 x 45deg, it's the vertical height of the chamfer, like your 2d chamfer operation, like below.  Might wanna fix that one!

2.png

Message 8 of 10
seth.madore
in reply to: DarthBane55


@DarthBane55 wrote:

Another tidbit of feedback:

 

Look at the chamfer size... who measures a chamfer like that?  Nobody.  When you say you want a chamfer 0.010 x 45deg, it's the vertical height of the chamfer, like your 2d chamfer operation, like below.  Might wanna fix that one!

 


I actually raised this exact sentiment when the toolpath was in Insider Preview. The "issue" is that this is a licensed ModuleWorks toolpath, and that's how they've (MW) defined it. The intent of the Deburr toolpath is not so much to produce accurately sized chamfers, but "break edges". That said, the upside is that defining a .01" sized edgebreak will result in a chamfer that is smaller than that, so at least it's "stock on" (and you can tweak accordingly)


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 9 of 10

I have the latest mastercam and debur works the same in that. I had both up on different monitors and the only difference is that I have to select the machining geometry for every toolpath in mastercam and fusion automatically grabs the model you used for your setup. (huge bonus to me for Autodesk)

Message 10 of 10
DarthBane55
in reply to: seth.madore

I see!  Very interesting.

I have tested MasterCam and SolidCam (I think it is SolidCam).  And for some toolpaths (they both use ModuleWorks), they have slightly different options.  That made me think that it is possible for a CAM software to "tweak", or hmmmm, to "play" with the options provided by ModuleWorks.  Maybe a simple trig math from Autodesk could give a 3rd option to the users to have a normal chamfer method, and pass that value back to ModuleWorks.  After all, all these boxes we fill are variables passed to the toolpath engine.  This variable could be named the same and passed on to the ModuleWorks engine...  I think...  I'm not a professional computer programmer, but just from some experience I have, I could see this as being possible.  Maybe not.

 

Anyways, that explains the strange choices, thanks Seth!

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report