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: 

Steep and Shallow failed toolpath

14 REPLIES 14
SOLVED
Reply
Message 1 of 15
RCSDesign
911 Views, 14 Replies

Steep and Shallow failed toolpath

So I finally decided to try out the steep and shallow toolpath.  The "buy 100 credits at a time but it costs 125 credits" thing is pretty shady and personally a little insulting btw.

 

Anyways I decided to setup my first SaS toolpath directly along side of a standard contour + parallel toolpath I already completed to compare side by side.  

 

I selected my tool, selected my boundaries, set my heights, set my step overs etc.  Everything looks fairly straight forward and intuitive. 

 

The op failed very fast giving me this in the log - 

 

Enabled feature flags: additive context-aware-menus drill-wizard machine-configuration probe-geometry-strategy strategy-inspect-surface strategy-steep-shallow

Error: Bad surface

Error: Boundary calculation failed.

Error: Failed to process job.

 

I tried various attempts at changing the boundary.  Nothing changes.  This is really frustrating as I am now on a 30 day timer to use this toolpath on top of my yearly subscription, and that frustration is compounded by the shady pricing structure of the cloud credits.  In addition to that there are no real tutorials online using this toolpath and I kind of feel like I just spent a hundred bucks on wasting my time. 

 

Any help? 

14 REPLIES 14
Message 2 of 15
seth.madore
in reply to: RCSDesign

To provide the best caliber of help, we will need to see the file, as there are a plethora of settings and selections that could cause this to flake out. Can you share here? Right click on the file in the Data Panel and select "Share Public Link". You can password protect the file if you prefer and PM me the link and PW.


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 3 of 15
RCSDesign
in reply to: seth.madore

Link Sent in PM

 

Thanks

Message 4 of 15
seth.madore
in reply to: RCSDesign

Yep! The toolpath is certainly failing, with pretty much any selection of SaS. The developers are looking over the file to determine the cause of failure. I'll post back when I have more info to share 😞


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 5 of 15
RCSDesign
in reply to: seth.madore

Well at least I know im not crazy.

 

Thanks!

Message 6 of 15
ken.poyner
in reply to: RCSDesign

The dev team has taken a look at this, the issue lies in how the steep and shallow algorithm examines the model. Oddly while the green model you've shown displays this issue, the yellow one doesn't. I guess as a workaround to test the algorithm until we've got it fixed you could use the yellow model (to my untrained eyes they look the same, though obviously the algorithm has other opinions). 



Ken Poyner

Software Engineer (PowerMill)
Message 7 of 15
RCSDesign
in reply to: ken.poyner

After looking at the model per Seth's private messages we discovered that the broken edge/face connections that were causing the edges were probably due to the model being a ".sldprt" file import from Solidworks where the model was originally created.  

 

We exported the same model from solidworks as a .step file and it worked perfectly and the broken edges were not visible.  I can now use the SaS toolpath.  

 

There might be an fix needed to the .sldprt import process to correct this on Autodesk's end but a simple change to our workflow fixes this for me.  

 

Initial 5 minute test with SaS looks pretty impressive both on compute time and the ease of use.  I can definitely see where "avoid/touch surfaces" would helpful though.  

Message 8 of 15
ken.poyner
in reply to: RCSDesign

" I can definitely see where "avoid/touch surfaces" would helpful though. "

You'll hopefully be pleased with yesterday's update then!



Ken Poyner

Software Engineer (PowerMill)
Message 9 of 15

Hi, I have the same problem:

 

Feature flags: mfg-extensions adaptive-turn-roughing contour2D-select-faces enable-rest-shadow hig-styled-qt iron-object-states machine-builder machine-simulation old-pocket-detector setup-sheet-configurations setup-sheet-viewer spun-profile-v2 strategy-blend turn-in-negative-diameter

 

Error: Bad surface

 

Error: Boundary calculation failed.

 

Error: Failed to process job.

 

Invalidated: Generation failed

 

But in my case I designed the model in Fusion 360

What should I do now?

 

Kind regards

Message 10 of 15
davebanks1
in reply to: RCSDesign

Hi  @seth.madore@ken.poyner,

 

Please could you look into my issue? Its the same issue that @RCSDesign stated in his original post.

I am pretty new to fusion and have been trying out Steep and Shallow on some drill jigs, I've had good succuss using this toolpath on the first 3 models but on this model I'm getting an issue with the toolpath.

 

The job was originally modeled up in Catia and sent to us via a .Step file

 

unfortunately I cant upload the model om here but i can send it to you via PM.

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Dave 

Message 11 of 15
seth.madore
in reply to: davebanks1

Can you send me your file? Right click in the Data Panel and select "Share Link". Email me that link:

seth DOT madore AT autodesk DOT com


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 12 of 15
seth.madore
in reply to: davebanks1

If we open up our Tolerance to .045mm (instead of .01), we do manage to get a toolpath:

2023-04-06_12h58_11.png

It certainly warrants closer investigation 


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 13 of 15
davebanks1
in reply to: seth.madore

Thanks Seth for the work around the toolpath is doing what I want it to do now.

Would this affect my inspection surface tolerance? the feet and the holes are tied up to each other
Message 14 of 15
seth.madore
in reply to: RCSDesign

Honestly, I think you're going to have more tolerance issues using that model than anything else. For example, is that top surface (below the posts) supposed to be flat and parallel to the bottom surface? Because, it's not actually a flat surface, it's a spline:

2023-04-07_06h04_57.png

 (the above is a projected sketch of the profile of that main section of the part)


Seth Madore
Customer Advocacy Manager - Manufacturing
Message 15 of 15
davebanks1
in reply to: seth.madore

The top and bottom surfaces are curved, but are parallel to each other, these faces are not tied up, it's the uprights to the holes that are tied up

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

Post to forums