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: 

option to decide if final pass will climb cut or conventional cut when using "both ways"

34 REPLIES 34
Reply
Message 1 of 35
jeff2HS8X
1012 Views, 34 Replies

option to decide if final pass will climb cut or conventional cut when using "both ways"

I have mentioned about this a few times over the past couple years and apparently autodesk doesn't think its a big deal, and Im not sure if im the only one who is annoyed by this but i swear there has to be others that think its stupid... 

when you use the 2d pocket or 2d contour option with "both ways" enabled you sometimes end up with a final pass that is conventional milling, which is not mostly desired as conventional cuts will leave a poor wall finish as compared to climb milling. Im not sure why no one at autodesk can make a quick option to decide "final pass direction" with the option to select climb or mill?? this seems so easy to do and its honestly quite surprising its not already a thing... no offense but its almost like the softare was written by people who dont use the software all day and everyday as programmers/engineers like myself do...   I think autodesk has made a great software and I really do enjoy using fusion 360 for the most part, but they would really go above and beyond if they listened to peoples suggestions who use the software every single day as their profession.  

And dont bother mentioning to "leave stock and create an additional operation finishing only" or any other workarounds... im tired of workarounds and would like solutions.

 

Thanks,

Jeff

34 REPLIES 34
Message 2 of 35
dwilliamsFM6K4
in reply to: jeff2HS8X

I would also find this useful, it is a good suggestion that would also eliminate additional operational toolpaths I find myself having to use to control it

Message 3 of 35
engineguy
in reply to: jeff2HS8X

@jeff2HS8X 

@dwilliamsFM6K4 

 

I would say that the feature is already available as it seems to work fine here, maybe I have got it wrong regarding what exactly you are asking for but I am able to get the final Pass with both Open Contours and Open Pockets to "Climb Mill" regardless of how all the other passes are cut, all I do is select a "Finish Stepdown" in the Operation in the "Multiple Depths", it doesn`t matter if I select the "Even Stepdowns" and set say 1mm for the "Maximum Stepdown" to do a total 6mm depth if I set a "Finish Stepdown" of say 0.2mm Fusion will set it`s own Stepdowns to leave the 0.2mm for the last cut, as it has been designated as a "Finish" it will run as a "Climb" direction, this is what I have found with a little testing here, see attached file for an example of an open Contour and an open Pocket, both run "both ways" but run the "normal" climb milling for the last pass. This is not a "workaround" like an extra Finishing Operation, it is a genuine part of the Operation and is there to be used, which is probably why Autodesk haven`t done anything else as it is already in there. Yes?? 🙂 🙂

Maybe I have it wrong but this seems to me to be what is being asked for ???  🙂 🙂 🙂

Example of Finishing Pass-Stepdown.jpg

 

Oh, BTW, if you are one of those folks who do run Conventional cutting as some woodworkers do then it will do the last pass in the Conventional direction as well 🙂

Message 4 of 35
rengfx
in reply to: jeff2HS8X

No that won't work @engineguy , you still have to pair or manually setup # of passes with cutter direction and it's not always climb/conventional

 

Even if you

 

1) Check 'Multiple Finishing Passes' (at least 2+)

2) Check 'Finish Only at Final Depth'

3) Check 'Rough Final'

 

You'll get a possible Climb OR Conventional 'Finish Pass' depending on # / Depth of Stepdowns

 

Still gotta fiddle with it to behave how we would want from OPs request

 

I even played with 'Keep Tool Down' but still seems like I have to manually either change direction arrow / cutter side to get a finish pass moving the way I want at times

 

It would be nice to have this, then the 'Bottom' Finish pass would either be Climb / Conventional and could be feed rate adjusted in the same step, thus combining Rough / Finish operation

Message 5 of 35
engineguy
in reply to: rengfx

@rengfx 

 

Nope, apologies but I have to disagree with you, if you don`t mess with the "Finishing Passes" then it works fine.

 

What I am talking about is the Stepdowns, not the Passes.

In the image below you will see that nothing is set in the top half that deals with "Extra" finishing passes except the Finish Feedrate which comes into play if there has been any "Roughing Passes" set, and obviously the "Both Ways" option.

If there are "Roughing Passes" set then if the "Finish only at Final Depth" is also used then the "Roughing Passes" only go to the depth (Stepdowns) of the last rough and run at the "Cutting Feedrate" and the final finish is done at the final depth(Stepdown) as set and runs at the "Finish Feedrate". You also get a "Stepover" value box which can be used in conjunction with the "Maximum Stepover" setting 🙂

If no "Roughing Passes" are used the the "Cutting Feedrate" uses the value set in the "Finish Feedrate" box, remember that the 2D Contour is essentially a "Finishing Toolpath" and should be viewed as such if no "Roughing Passes" are used.

The whole thing is very comprehensive and does take a bit of getting used to but all the features are there, just a matter of using the right options for the job in hand 🙂

Sounds a lot but quite easy once it has been used a few times, no manual direction changes needed, it will go in the direction set in the "Sideways Compensation", Left/Right 🙂

 

So, summary, don`t mess with the extra passes to get the final Stepdown to go in the direction of the "Sideways Compensation" selection of Left (Climb) or Conventional (Right), just use the "Finishing Stepdowns" settings for number of and depth of the last Stepdown 🙂

 

My apologies if I am not explaining it very well but best I can do with such a complex Strategy 🙂 🙂 🙂

 

Example of Finishing Pass-Stepdown-2.jpg

 

Message 6 of 35
rengfx
in reply to: engineguy

Edit: It is still highly reliant on # of passes and DOC , the finish pass at final as previously stated

 

Attached is your file with 1st toolpath @ 1.5mm which results in CONVENTIONAL Finish and then opposite side EXACT same toolpath with DOC @ 2.0mm and it is finishing CLIMB due to position relative to # of stepdowns

 

Both have the same arrow governing them and cutter direction, ONLY change is depth of cut 

Message 7 of 35
DarthBane55
in reply to: rengfx

I agree with original post, this should be automatic.  We should not have to bother by faking multiple depths of cut when we don't take multiple depth of cuts, it's an extra hassle.  You pick climb, the final cut should be climb, that simple.

However, I do have a solution, which I think is much less of a hassle... maybe... (it is for me lol). So say your last pass is conventional, and the 1st pass starts on the "left side", I then chose a start point on the opposite side, and it changes the direction of all the passes, and the last pass becomes climb.

This forces us to pay close attention to that last pass to first identify that it's not climb milling, so not as automatic as just put the last pass to always be climb when choosing climb, but it's a very simple and quick way to make to make it work.  It also works when selecting multiple contours, just pick as many start points as needed, it never failed me (I think).

Message 8 of 35
engineguy
in reply to: rengfx

@rengfx 

 

OK, looked at your file and I see that you have set the stepdowns to a value of 1.5mm, the height is 6mm which is fine.

However if a user wants/needs to set a value and they don`t want to have to work out how many stepdowns are needed to get the final stepdown to run in the desired direction ie, the same direction as the preferred "Sideways Compensation" direction then all the user needs to do is put a value of 1 in the "Finishing Stepdowns" box and if required a preferred final depth other than the "Default" depth.

 

There is no need to work anything out, or do anything else, I deliberately changed the 1.5mm value that you had to a  value of 1.3mm, this caused the final cut to be in the wrong direction, so I just input a value of 1 in the "Finishing Stepdowns" box and an extra cut at the depth set of 0.2mm (Default) is done in the correct direction, in this case a "Climb" as set in the "Sideways Compensation" method.

If I set the "Sideways Compensation" Right then the start position is automatically moved to the opposite end which is what usually happens anyway and the last cut is in that direction.

 

In your file you did not use the "Finishing Stepdowns" facility so that is why you reckoned you had to set the value to 1.5mm, again, had you elected to use that facility then you wouldn`t have needed to work that out, it is done automatically for you 🙂

I have atached the file again with the 1.3mm stepdown value and a single "Finishing Stepdown" and it works perfectly.

 

Message 9 of 35
jeff2HS8X
in reply to: engineguy

Thanks for your reply and your efforts. unfortunately however, this is not a solution to what I am describing.  what I am describing should have nothing to do with depths of cut, or anything on the z axis for that matter. this is entirely to do with "radially" offset passes, or stepovers.  I have attached a screencast of a sample part that I have created. you can see the part has 6 open pockets. I am using a 2d contour strategy with multiple roughing passes, both way, and stay down, and left compensation enabled. it almost seems to run perfect and optimally ideal being that it finishes all of the floor and walls of each pocket selected all within one machining operation , right? WRONG. notice that not all of them end with a final "climb" cut even though my operation has "left" enabled.   even if i change start points nothing changes....

one workaround is to duplicate the operation, leave stock on the original operation in the same amount as my stepovers. and then make the duplicated operation only perform the finish passes and uncheck "both ways" . this works, but now the tool runs two laps around the part if that makes sense? not a huge deal, but why should we settle for that?  and unfortunately, to make it the most optimal tool path, i would have to use this same strategy on each individual pocket, therefore ending up with 12 operations that realistically could be done in one....

im really hoping one of the developers sees this and agrees this is a good idea.... ive been asking for this for a while now and it still is mind boggling they haven't thought of this or done this already.... its really stupid

Message 10 of 35
jeff2HS8X
in reply to: DarthBane55

Thanks for the reply. So you have a great idea, I have tried this before , and you must be getting very lucky because it has only worked in certain scenarios for me unfortunately....  I have attached a "sample" file in my last post that you are welcome to fiddle around with and see if it works for you by changing your starting points? 

Message 11 of 35
engineguy
in reply to: DarthBane55

@DarthBane55 

 

It is automatic, if the original selection is for a "Sideways Compensation" of "Left" then it doesn`t matter what values are used for the Maximum Stepdown Fusion will work out how many passes are required using the "Maximum Stepdown Value" as it`s reference, if it does end up with the last cut going the wrong way all you need to do is put a 1 in the "Finishing Stepdown" box and Fusion will automatically change the previous cuts whether the "Even Depths" option is used or not and give you a final cut at the direction selected, Climb or Conventional, no need to setting start points etc, just use the "Finishing Stepdown" facility and it will all be done for you 🙂 🙂

Message 12 of 35
jeff2HS8X
in reply to: engineguy

engineguy, can you take a look at my last post with the sample file, video, image.  because what you are describing will not work for what i am describing. again, it has absolutely nothing to do with stepdowns or depths of cut.

Message 13 of 35
DarthBane55
in reply to: engineguy

@engineguy I am not 100% sure we are talking about the same sort of problem.  For me, the problem is when finishing a floor and a wall in a single operation.  There is no multiple depths of cuts involved in any of it, that where I think we understood the issue a bit differently.

Message 14 of 35
jeff2HS8X
in reply to: DarthBane55

you are absolutely right. what i am trying to do is finish floors and walls in a single operation and has absolutely nothing to do with depths of cuts or stepdowns.  

Message 15 of 35
DarthBane55
in reply to: jeff2HS8X

@jeff2HS8X Ok, I took a shot at your sample file... and it fails hehe.  There are 2 pockets that are hard headed and won't switch direction.  I think I have seen this too now that I think about it, and I was forced to split this in 2 or 3 operations to get it correct.  Sorry about that, it fails sometimes I guess 😫

Message 16 of 35
dwilliamsFM6K4
in reply to: jeff2HS8X

Always good to deep dive it!

Message 17 of 35
engineguy
in reply to: jeff2HS8X

@jeff2HS8X 

@DarthBane55 

 

Well, what can I say, hands up to this, I made an assumption as in the original Post by the OP there was no mention of 2D side "Roughing Passes" I just went for the "Multiple Depths" and "Roughing Passes" together 🙂

To be fair in future a little more information at the start would have sent me in a different direction for sure 🙂

 

Anyway, @jeff2HS8X you did say "have a fiddle" with your Sample file and here is what I get, see the Screencast at the link below, is this "fiddled" enough 🙂

 

Screencast Link :-    https://autode.sk/3EgrF9h

Message 18 of 35
jeff2HS8X
in reply to: engineguy

sorry about that, I thought I was pretty descriptive in my OP , but I am glad we are on the same page now and glad you "fiddled" around with it because that looks perfect whatever you have done! I must know haha

Message 19 of 35
DarthBane55
in reply to: engineguy

@engineguy that video was perfect, please share the magix! 

Message 20 of 35
engineguy
in reply to: DarthBane55

@DarthBane55 

@jeff2HS8X 

 

Competition time, I only changed 2 (two) settings 🙂

Your starter for 20 points - - - What are the changes ??

 

I will give a clue if it is really needed 🙂 🙂

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

Post to forums  

Autodesk Design & Make Report