How do I model this solid carbide boring bar in the tool library?

[Anonymous]

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00Q8MH4IA/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o02_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1

It's irritating that it only allows insert tools.  I got it modeled approximately as an ANMG0302X0-DAFN-R.  I think I've got a good toolpath now but the modeled tool has a big square head sticking through the side of my part.  I would also like to rename the tool since the auto generated name isn't really relevant to the actual tool. 

[martha.deans · Accepted solution]

There isn't currently support for solid carbide turning tools in Fusion - modeling as close as you can with an insert tool is the best thing to do for now. 

As for giving a more relevant name, someone else recently had a very similar question which I responded to here: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/computer-aided-machining-cam/rename-a-tool/m-p/6616778#U6616778

Hopefully at least the naming part helps!

[Anonymous]

I'm with you! Most of my tooling is not inserts with holders and I get simulated collisions all over!

[chris.rouxel88]

Are there any plans to improve Fusion 360's ability to use a solid model as a tool?

Currently struggling to use Iscar's Pico boring bar for internal profiling:

https://www.iscar.com/eCatalog/Item.aspx?cat=6403545&fnum=1741&mapp=IS&GFSTYP=I&srch=1

[seth.madore]

You created a new thread 29 minutes ago, and I replied to that one 25 minutes ago. Please try to refrain from bumping multiple older threads on this topic, especially since you've created a new thread.

[Fully_Defined]

@seth.madore LOL - instead of fixing this 7 years ago.

I have a drawer full of Sandvik CXS tools and it’s getting old looking up “how do I do this thing that shouldn’t be hard” questions and finding people have been asking for the same thing for a decade with zero movement from Autodesk.

Someday I’d like to make parts with Autodesk CAM without headscratching workarounds. Someday!

[seth.madore]

Importing 3d models of turning tools and actually being able to use them in a turning toolpath is extremely high on our list of things to solve. That said, it's an enormous task that's going to take a fair bit of time. 

[Fully_Defined]

@seth.madore Cool! I’ll pencil it in for 2035.

[seth.madore]

🤣

It will be a lot sooner than that 😉

[Anonymous]

I fell your pain, which is why I moved to SolidCAM years ago.

[martha.deans]

Totally hear you on this being a long-standing issue! We agree and like Seth mentions, we are hoping to address a lot of turning tool pain points, including this one.

Our first task is to improve support for ISO tools by allowing the attachment of a 3D model to an existing tool definition. This will set us up for future cases where it is difficult or impossible to describe the shape of the tool entity using only parameters, and should also add value to users who struggle with the current ISO definitions. From there, we'll look to address non-ISO tools like the carbide bars you mention. 

If you want early access to some of the above, I would recommend joining the Insider program, as we will release functionality there first under and Insider Feature Flag. I can try to update this thread when we move on to some of the work that addresses non-ISO tools more directly, if you're interested. (Hopefully earlier than 2035 😉 )

[jeff2HS8X]

just curious if you guys finally made a fix to this? (it was 7 years ago now)

[seth.madore]

Hi @jeff2HS8X, as I mentioned in post #7, it's something we're actively working on, but it's still a fair bit off. Nothing to share at this time, but work is actively happening to make this a reality.

[Fully_Defined]

@seth.madore This is how conspiracy theories start LOL. A kernel of truth and then silence!

Throw a dog a bone. What progress have you made?

[jeff2HS8X]

You might have been spot on with your 2035 estimate 

[seth.madore]

---

@Fully_Defined wrote:

Throw a dog a bone. What progress have you made?

---

Unfortunately, company legal policy prevents me from sharing complete details. I will say that we've mostly solved some of the foundational issues for our first step of the task. There's still a lot of work to do, but it's actively underway.

@jeff2HS8X wrote:

You might have been spot on with your 2035 estimate 

---

So I guess as long as we've delivered in that timeframe we'll all be happy 🙂