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: 

Mitsubishi Laser - Using beam offsets, WITHOUT Lead outs

13 REPLIES 13
Reply
Message 1 of 14
ArdentIndustries
351 Views, 13 Replies

Mitsubishi Laser - Using beam offsets, WITHOUT Lead outs

Hey all, 

 We've moved from an Amada laser to a Mitsubishi machine. As we had with our Amada post, we still are not easily able to utilize the machine beam offset functionality. That said, we program in F360 using a specific beam width, "In Computer" compensation enabled, and then if the part is not correct, we have to repost using a different beam width. 

See this thread I started years ago that discusses the issues we were having then. Sounded like people may be looking into fixing it but I didnt see any resolution. @kyle_kershaw @MattWynn 

 

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-post-processor-forum/amada-laser-post-questions-requests/td-p/945...

 

I am wondering if anyone has found a way to allow tabs, allow "In Control" compensation, WITHOUT having to enable "Lead Outs"? This is my biggest hold up at the moment. The post from NexGenSolutions works well, theyve been great making requested changes but this issue still shows and it appears to be something within F360, not post related. 

Can anyone advise as to how one may be able to fix this. Again, in a nutshell, we need to be able to select "In Control" for a compensation type, and NOT have to enable lead out to do so. The small moves added to the lead in when "In Control" is specified is annoying but as Kershaw mentioned in the other thread, there is a work around. 

Any help is appreciated!

13 REPLIES 13
Message 2 of 14

You are going to need Lead-In and Out when using In Control compensation

(Matt is no longer with Autodesk, so don't expect a response from him)

 

Reading the thread you linked, it sounds like that small linear move is still present, is that correct (and you're getting a CRC error)?


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 3 of 14

Yes, correct. The small moves are there when using the lead out. Screenshot below. 

Is there any work going into allowing 2D Cutting without the lead out needing to be enabled? This is not needed on lasers, plasmas, etc and most CAM software for these machines do not require a lead out, they simply stop short of the lead in to create the tab. 

ArdentIndustries_0-1710768721454.png

 

Message 4 of 14

I don't think there's any work being done to allow the omission of lead-in/out and In Control Comp, sorry.

I wonder if the post could be modified to suit. I don't know how that would work though...

In machining world, if you're using In-Control, you need a linear move to establish cutter comp. How does that work on plasma/laser?


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 5 of 14

Works in the same manner, but doesn't need to have a lead out. 
Maybe if the lead out is mandatory, there could be a "stop short" command that would stop the cut path to a specified amount. When using the lead out, the weird small moves, the tab features, all stacked up, you get a gnarly shark tooth on your parts that dont come out of the sheet well. 

Machining screenshot below, which does show a lead out obviously but none of the "weird" short/small moves. 

ArdentIndustries_0-1710770950735.png

 

Message 6 of 14

But "Lead In" is required, right?


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 7 of 14

Correct. If I select "In Control" and dont also check "Lead Out", I get an error message, forcing me to enable lead out. 

Message 8 of 14

Which post processor are you using, I don't see a Mitsubishi post in our library (at least not for laser)


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 9 of 14

NexGenSolutions has provided us with a post for the Mits machine. 

Message 10 of 14


@ArdentIndustries wrote:


ArdentIndustries_0-1710768721454.png

 


Could I get my hands on this file, or an example thereof? 


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 11 of 14

Having spoken with one of the post developers, if the post processor is not encrypted, it's possible to strip out the offending moves. Can you share the post or email it to me (if it's not encrypted)


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 12 of 14

Whats your email address? I can send the current revision post and that part file. 

Message 13 of 14


@ArdentIndustries wrote:

Whats your email address? I can send the current revision post and that part file. 


seth DOT madore AT autodesk DOT com


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 14 of 14

Email sent. Thanks!

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report