Linking Tool Libraries?

[Rob_Ellis]

So this morning I had a thought relating to my cloud tool libraries. For every machine in my shop, I have created a tool library with pre-loaded tools in the machine. Obviously, this just makes programming and set up much more efficient.

However, let's say I decide to change a tool in the library, then every program I have written using that library will need to be updated. This isn't a huge deal as whenever I have a repeat job, I always run through the program quickly to make sure everything is ok. While doing so, I also verify the tooling in the program matches what is in my machines. If not, then I just quickly update the tool and I'm up and running. I have written 1000's of programs over the last few years using this method, and its not a big deal.

This morning a thought occurred to me that it would be nice to be able to link a tool in a cloud library in much the same fashion that we can link models from other files. So for example, right now I have a roughing tool as my first tool in my 5-axis machine. The tool finally met its doom, and I replaced it with a slightly different tool that I wanted to try out for a bit. Now whenever I pull up a previously written program, I will have to update tool 1. Again, not a big deal. Now my cloud library for that machine has been changed.

It would be pretty awesome if there was a way that when you assign a tool from your cloud library to the current part being fabricated, that the tool is linked back to that cloud library. Just like when you drag in files to your existing file, it has the linked icon next to it. Any time you update that model in its original file and save it, any new file that is associated with that original file just needs a quick update and you're back up and running with a simple click or two. It would be awesome if that same method worked with tools in the tool library. You assign the tool to the job, and if at any point in the future the tool is updated, then you just regenerate the toolpath and the tool is also updated in the process. If you ever decide you need to modify the tool and you don't want it to affect the main cloud library, you could "break link" just like you would with regular models in the design workspace.

I don't know if something like this exists already or not, but it was something that popped up this morning, and I thought it would be a good idea to  get it out there in case there is something like this that already exists and I'm just unaware of it. 

I don't know how many people would find this beneficial, but I think it would be a nice feature if it existed. 

I was thinking that it woul

[christopher.cooperVHK2N]

@Rob_Ellis Thanks for taking the time to put this suggestion together your feedback does really help shape decisions. 

We have had conversations about how to link tools within the library as using a tool within a document currently has no link to the original tool. To me what you described is the ability to replace a tool which may take the idea a step further.

I am tagging @Anonymous into this thread as she is the product manager for the tool library.

Thanks

Chris

[martha.deans]

Hi @Rob_Ellis – I'll second the thanks for taking the time to share this idea!

Like Chris said, we have been considering the idea of "linking" tools so that any updates made in the cloud library can propagate down to the document or operation where they are used, and I think the initial part of your feedback captures the workflows we were considering.

When you talk about replacing the tool:

---

So for example, right now I have a roughing tool as my first tool in my 5-axis machine. The tool finally met its doom, and I replaced it with a slightly different tool that I wanted to try out for a bit. Now whenever I pull up a previously written program, I will have to update tool 1.

---

are you suggesting that there should be separate workflows for fully replacing a tool vs editing one? And what would those differences be and why?

Separately, you described changes going from the cloud libraries down into the operation/document level. Would you see any value in changes going the other direction, so you could capture any edits made on the fly at the operation level back up into the library?

[Rob_Ellis]

Thanks for the reply! This is why I love Autodesk, you guys really listen to the community.

So as for replacing the tool, I'll see if I can come up with a more detailed thought.

Right now when I am programming a new part, I will use the library that I have designated for my machine. In this case, it is my Haas UMC-750SS. I have a cloud library dedicated to this machine where all the tools are already loaded and pre-set. (I'm only using a cloud library because I program a lot from home as well, so I always have access to the library.) My tool 1 was a 1/2" roughing endmill with corner radii. When it broke, I replaced it with a different tool that had square corners. Now that this tool is in the #1 spot in the machine, I then updated my cloud library to reflect the new tool. This just ensures that from here forward, I am always selecting the tool that is currently in the machine. What this also means, is that any time I pull up parts that I have previously programmed, I will need to manually update the tool in that program to the new tool by going into the library at the document level, delete the tool, then select the new tool from the cloud library and regenerate the toolpath. This is by no means tedious, in fact its only a couple clicks to accomplish this.

My thought on making this more efficient would be like this: When I am programming a new part, I can select tools from my cloud library just as I normally would. However, this time the tool that I have selected is linked back to the cloud library. So for example, I am programming a new part, and I have selected tool 1 that is linked back to the tool library. Lets say I eventually program 30 different parts using the same tool library, and all of the tools are linked back to this library. One day tool 1 lets go again, and I change it out for a different tool. Instead of deleting tools out of the library at the document level, I instead go back to the cloud tool library, and select tool 1 and edit the tool to reflect the change. Now all of those 30 parts that are using that tool will need to be updated. The thought would be that I can pull up any of those parts, go to that toolpath, and just ctrl+g to regenerate the toolpath, and it will update the toolpath to reflect the change to tool 1.

What this would also allow in an ideal world is that if I only wanted to change tool 1 for the part itself at the document level (not in the cloud library), then I could right click and "break link" to the document level tool library, which would allow me to make changes to the current active tooling without affecting anything else.

I think that would answer the last question as well. For me, personally, I don't see any value in being able to update the tool at the document level and have it reflect in the cloud library. I like the idea of having my cloud library be my "master tool list" if you will, where I only have to control it in one spot. Of course, others may find value in that, so it might still be something to consider to appeal to an even broader audience.

There are already tons of workflows within Fusion that in my opinion really set it apart from other CAM software. I think this is just one more step in setting yourselves apart from the competition even further.

Also, before people chime in telling me I should just replace the tool with the same tool, I do a lot of rapid prototyping in my shop, and sometimes I want to experiment with different tools and different toolpath strategies. Other times, I may not have the tool on hand and can't afford the time to wait for the new one to arrive, so I work with what I have on hand. haha

[Don.Cyr]

I agree that it would be nice to have the tool in the document library linked to the "Master" cloud library then if we add or edit cutting data etc. it would update the changes to the "master" tool but somehow give us the option to "break link" as described. This way if a tool in my document has different parameters like tool stick-out or maybe even a different holder, etc. if the link was broken the changes would only be saved with the document tool if that were the case. Or for example, when running the document tool cutting parts there needs to be an edit for cutting parameters for that tool we can edit those parameters in the document tool and if the tool was still linked, the changes would reflect in the "master" tool as well. (I do this quite often and I usually find myself changing the parameters of the master tool and having to re-select it in the operation..)

[martha.deans]

Thanks both for your responses! 

It seems like the value in pushing changes up to the master tool from the document tool is quite dependent on user workflow – especially if you are consistently trying to capture new / modify existing cutting data from what you observe at the machine and save it into the master tool, so having the flexibility to do so would be nice but it shouldn't be a requirement that changes are bi-directional. Is that in line with both of your thinking?

[Rob_Ellis]

I think that would be perfect!

[Don.Cyr]

Exactly, it would definitely be a significant improvement, especially with options. I look forward to seeing it in the next insider release! 😉

[Rob_Ellis]

I also figured instead of starting a new thread, since you're in here, I had one additional suggestion.

If there was a way to "Insert Toolpath" at any point in the operation, that could save a significant amount of time as well. Sometimes I have programs that have 100+ toolpaths, and every now and then I will need to add a toolpath into it, and it automatically places the toolpath at the very bottom, which then requires the new toolpath to be dragged and dropped in the necessary spot, and at times has caused some issues with mixing up toolpaths. 

Just a small suggestion to tack on to this thread that would be a huge improvement. 

[martha.deans]

@Don.Cyr I would love that, but in the spirit of transparency I will say this is likely to be a longer term project. The technical details are unfortunately a bit complicated and we have some competing internal projects that could either speed this up or delay it, but my money is on the latter.
That being said, it's something I hear a lot and I definitely think it would be a great addition! Just don't want anyone to hold their breath just yet 🙂

[martha.deans]

I added this to a much longer tool library thread I think you are both a part of, but wanted to let you both know I'm trying out ad hoc customer meetings via and I would encourage you both to set up a meeting if you have feedback/workflow insights/unaddressed pain points to share: https://calendly.com/marti-deans/officehours

[kevinFZF99]

Has there been any thought to the adding the linking functionality to tool libraries? Similar to the way linked components warn you when they are changed and are part of multiple assemblies.

Regards,