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.
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Making Round Boring Bars is impossible in Fusion 360 ?

Message 1 of 13
661 Views, 12 Replies

Making Round Boring Bars is impossible in Fusion 360 ?


I am trying to make a Boring bar of S16K FSVJBR11 with a VBMT1103 Insert Size , however I am stuck at creating the holder properly , I am sharing a snippet of what I have created so far.




I have set the selection to boring , and it has a square shank in the image but actually it is round , I cannot do that , the holders nose is forward then the insert itself. It will not be able to cut.


Let me know if someone can help me make the holder round and also make it look like S16K FSVJBR11




Tags (1)
Labels (3)
Message 2 of 13
in reply to: GermanWings

Fusion does a very poor job of handling boring bars with geometry such as that. The current (poor) solution is to define the tool without the holder. We are working on improving this experience, but it's a long running project.

Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 3 of 13
in reply to: seth.madore

Hello @seth.madore ,

Thanks for providing the poor solution 😄 , I hope whoever manages Fusions Manufacturing Direction , prioritizes this too.


Also is there a face groove toolpath in fusion 360 ? , I just want to create a very light PCD on the face of the part , like the tool would just plunge in the face , and rapid out back , maybe I should create a new topic for this one..

Message 4 of 13
in reply to: GermanWings

You CAN get somewhat close by defining it as a Turning General tool (an OD tool), but it's not 100% there:


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 5 of 13

Hello GermanWings,


Your message is timely, as I am faced with the same challenge today.   I started a similar thread conversion a few weeks ago, and I have a similar issue....and maybe this is just turning into a gripe because Seth already confirmed that creating boring bars is a pain in the butt.  My twist is that 75% of my small boring bars are ground to point tools (that is, no inserts, just the ground carbide) and to try to re-create one of these small tools in Fusion is a trial-and-error process to try to get an insert that sorta matches but you never know 100% if it is accurate.  There is no reason for me to try to re-create a tool using inserts when the tool does not use inserts.


I also have a similar need to do face profiling, and I am having problems figuring that out even with my poorly created tool....which is why I jumped on the msg board to ask for help.


I am trying to cut the attached 3 faces with the same tool and I am using a new "axial profile tool" from micro100.  I should be able to do this, but I can't figure out the Fusion 360 method yet.  Perhaps it can be done with this "general turning tool" idea from Seth?  I don't know if I have a problem with my tool, or the turning profile I made, or both.


face profile sketch.png



Message 6 of 13

@Paul_NextMedicalDesign Could you share your Fusion file here?
File > Export > Save to local folder, return to thread and attach the .f3d file in your reply.

What specific tool are you trying to use, do you have a link to it?

Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 7 of 13

Hello Seth,


I have attached 2 files, my F360 and also a step file of the tool.


My work arounds include fudging the geometry of the tool by creating 2 insert based tools, 1 for inside profiling and 1 for outside profiling.  These are tool#s 53 and 54.  Interestingly, I also needed to apply two different X-dir tool offsets on my controller to get the setup correctly, i.e. I faked the fact that it is the same exact tool (same location on the gang plate, same right hand setup) and I am calling either #53 or #54 for when it is inside or outside.  I have the same exact Z tool offset, just I needed to change the X (and significantly....I don't have the numbers, but it may have been .010 or so...) to cut correctly.  Considering the same point contact should be used in my tools in the tool library, same tip radius etc., it makes me wonder why this is so?  This is a secondary point to the fact that it is a guessing game to define this tool accurately in the library.




Message 8 of 13

It's no surprise that you've got to cheat the offset, since you have the same tool oriented in different directions. It's going to be off at least the amount of the radius, right?

Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 9 of 13

Hi Seth,


Actually it was a surprise to me.  I can agree to your point superficially, but the tool is actually the same tool and in the same location and orientation on my machine.  Yes, two tools are flipped 180 in the tool library, but the same tangent point contact is specified.  So one could deduce that the software knows the orientation, and the point of contact, and therefore can create a tool path that is appropriate for the cut, whether inside or outside.  Apparently it does not.


I think the bigger point is that the library is not able to create this tool appropriately; and furthermore F360 can't handle face profiling.  If these two points were solved, it would save us all a bunch of time.


Thanks.  Please let me know if there is a better way to create the tool I sent earlier.



Message 10 of 13

Hello Seth,


I was wondering if you made any progress with more closely representing the tool I sent earlier?  It would be great to understand if there is a better way than my trial and error method with the inserts?




Message 11 of 13

Just a thought Seth, maybe fire the marketing team and hire a few more engineers to resolve the long standing bugs in the software. I don't need endless feature creep, I need the software I pay for to work as advertised. 


I am sure there's a few hundred useless DEI and HR people that can be jettisoned to hire some quality software and hardware engineers to resolve these long standing issues. The reason I am not paying for the advanced manufacturing features, is because the features I am already paying for are still broken so I have little faith in the ability of Autodesk to correct these problems. 

Message 12 of 13

Totally agreed .. the software is very buggy , and Lathe Turning Part of Fusion is absolutely poor..
Message 13 of 13

Sorry for the delay, other matters came up. I don't think it's going to be possible to get a boring bar defined exactly like the Micro example, or go from OD to ID turning in one toolpath. That said, I did find that you can use a Chamfer turning toolpath and get this:


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing

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

Post to forums