Pocket Clearing, inside out vs outside in

[DarthBane55]

Hi, see the picture below.  If you have a flat face without walls, it will machine from the outside towards the inside of the face.  If you have a wall, as shown on picture, it will start from inside and machine towards the outside.  This might be good in most cases, but sometimes it is not.  In this case, the setup is not very rigid, and the cosmetics is important...  when starting from the inside as shown, the helix leaves some marks in the middle of the part.  It pushes the material ever so slightly (there is nothing underneath the part).  To fix that we always start from the outside, and machine towards the inside.

I cannot find any way to accomplish that in Fusion.  I tried all cycles there is, all sorts of picking, various stocks, select a profile or dont select a profile, nothing will do it.  There is even an option in the lead-in section to say "plunge outside of stock", but this generates no toolpath, saying it would cause a collision...  

If someone knows a way (well, I can accomplish it, but it required making extra geometry, and I'm trying to automate programming of this as much as possible) without creating additional geometry, please explain!

To Fusion: could you not add an option to let us choose which direction we'd like to use (inside-out, outside in)?  I think it would solve so many problems I have with doing something so simple as this task.

Thanks for the help!

[LibertyMachine]

Have you tried using 3D adaptive?

Your issue sounds somewhat similar to the one I encountered that prompted me to start THIS THREAD

[DarthBane55]

I just read thru that thread. It is somewhat similar, but I don't want to use adaptive toolpath for this case, I prefer a constant step over and the pocket clearing is faster in this case to finish that face.
I already tried a few things mentioned in that thread, like the extra offset in the contour selection and such. It has no effect on the direction of the path for pocket clearing unfortunately.

[Steinwerks]

Use 2D Contour, select the outside edges of the face (not the face itself) as the Stock Contours, set your Finish Passes to something like 30 (it'll trim the excess), and select the wall contour for the geometry.

[DarthBane55]

What you suggested gave me what you see below.  Unless I misunderstood something and messed it up, this is really not what i want (let me know if I didn't understand correctly your explanations).  What I want is a pocketing pattern, outside to inside, like the lower picture, except it needs to consider the wall of course (my example machines into the wall as you can see).

[Steinwerks]

No, that's what I meant. You're correct that it won't do a pocketing style toolpath, and you've found the issue with using 2D Pocket.

Try 3D Pocket Clearing with the stock boundary set the same as before, Tool Containment set to Tool Outside Boundary with an offset at least as large as your tool diameter, and set your Ramp in the Linking Tab to Plunge Outside Stock. This should at least get you close.

[DarthBane55]

Ya, this is closer in a way...  it does plunge outside of the material, but then goes in a smooth motion to the middle of the face, and pockets outwards again.  So at the beginning, it makes a full width trail to the middle, instead of pocketing from outside to inside... hehehe, there just seems to be no way to do this without creating additional geometry.  I appreciate your help though, we may succeed one day, but the path cycle is designed to machine from inside to outside, no matter how we cheat it, it seems.

I know I can succeed with this path by creating an alternate model, which has no walls (just a flat face where the step face is now), and by offsetting the edge where the wall is by the tool radius, towards the inside of the face, and that does it, but it's a pain to do, because this is a type of part that we do all the time, and the shape is always different (but machining process is always the same).  I prefer to be able to do this without creating the additional geometry (efficiency...).  

[kb9ydn]

Have you tried the horizontal strategy?  It's specifically intended for facing and may do what you want.

C|

[Steinwerks]

It won't do outside -> in either in a constant stepover fashion (plunge outside and travel in to center, and then start stepping over). And it has a tendency to do a lot of extraneous "outside edge" finishing moves that drive me crazy.

Programming it is fast, but it's not an ideal toolpath in most situations that I've found.

[DarthBane55]

Yes, I tried every single cycle that exists, none of which will do what I need.

Do you work for Autodesk?  Or know an insider?  I'm really trying to pushing this check box (milling direction) thru to them, thru re-sellers, thru emails to Autodesk, but I never get a clear cut answer as if they understand what I want (and I can't imagine that I'm the only one who wants to decide which direction the path should go!) and/or if they plan on adding this option.  I really don't think it is too much asking, in fact, it is quite shocking that it is not in there from day 1!!  But maybe it's just me, being used to control my toolpath exactly the way i want, to get the result needed.  Sorry, it is a bit frustrating, but I can understand that everybody has their own features that they want in the software, so, patience is key!!

Thanks for your time though, I appreciate it!

[LibertyMachine]

It might not be the answer you'd want to hear, but it may be your best shot...

Write up a good suggestion, apply screenshots and make your case on: The IdeaStation

They DO listen to feedback and they use that medium to gauge where they should focus resources. 

Before you make an idea, search for it. If nothing exists, make your case. But please, post back here so others can find it and vote on it. I know it's got my vote!

[DarthBane55]

Alright, will do that!  Thanks for the suggestion, I had not seen that yet.

Might not get to it this week, but as soon as I do it, I'll post back here with a link 🙂

[kb9ydn]

---

@Steinwerks wrote:
It won't do outside -> in either in a constant stepover fashion (plunge outside and travel in to center, and then start stepping over). And it has a tendency to do a lot of extraneous "outside edge" finishing moves that drive me crazy.

Programming it is fast, but it's not an ideal toolpath in most situations that I've found.

---

I've noticed the extra edge finishing moves as well.  I kind of think the horizontal strategy has a lot of unrealized potential.

There is also a CAM specific ideastation now too.

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-ideas/idb-p/231/tab/most-recent

C|

[DarthBane55]

ok guys, I posted this on the Ideas board.  Please go vote for it!!

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-ideas/pocket-clearing-inside-out-vs-outside-in-cutting-direction/i...

[kb9ydn]

---

@DarthBane55 wrote:

ok guys, I posted this on the Ideas board.  Please go vote for it!!

http://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-ideas/pocket-clearing-inside-out-vs-outside-in-cutting-direction/i...

---

Done.

C|

[LibertyMachine]

Done!

[whizbanger]

I have the same requirement to mill from the outside-in, but with a 3D Pocket op.

[Anonymous]

Hmm,...  very old thread and I wonder if there was any progress on subject, I scanned thru the posts and figured not much has happened so I tried to see if you missed a possible solution.

So..... by  "thinking outside chip barrel" and cheating a little I can make Scallop do what it was not meant to do, it looks pretty close to what you want, Morphed spiral not as pretty but ...... acceptable.

[DarthBane55]

@Anonymous 

Well well!  That seems to work, specially the scallop one is pretty good!  Thanks for that, that will sure come in handy sometimes.

I won't accept it as a solution though if you don't mind, because the real solution is still for Autodesk to give us the choice in the appropriate operations, but this is a very good work around!

[Anonymous]

Hey, I am not avid collector of solution points, many have gone missing in action but that doesn't effect my bank account so it's OK.

My objective is to squeeze the most  out what I have, which ever way it works, but I agree it's up to Fusion to solve this one.