How do I nest a model for cutting on router.

[jfeyers]

I have a simple plywood shelf design which I am trying layout for cutting on my router table. I have used arrange for a couple other projects but this one requires me to nest smaller components within some larger ones in order to fit all on the same sheet. Simple process it would seem. However, after 2 days of searching for the answer, the only option I found appears to be a $1600 nesting extension which would be ABSOLUTELY INSANE for what I am doing. I was led to believe that fusion 360 was going to be a viable program for running my router. Here I am with what I believe should be a very standard requirement for doing this type of work, SIMPLE NESTING!  Am I overlooking the SIMPLE SOLUTION?

[TrippyLighting]

You'd arrange the components manually. It usually helps if you can share the model. Export as .f3d and attach to a post.

[jhackney1972]

I fail to see the issue.  Arrange will place components inside other components free areas is there is enough room, as the video shows.  Maybe you can attach your model to show you issue.

Edit: I you really need the Nesting and Fabrication Extension, you can access it on a Daily basis to cut the expense.

[jfeyers]

I've included the model as it currently exists.  It is not yet finished but I wanted to play around with nesting so that I could make design changes as needed to accommodate fitting two full assemblies per 4x8 sheet.  As an example, The 4 stacked base rings are sized to allow nesting of the upper shelves. In my trials, I have even drawn my stock dimensions as small as 15"x52" which is plenty large enough to fit 1 base ring and have 1 upper shelf nested internally. ARRANGE will not insert the shelf (for me).

@TrippyLighting, manually laying it out may be an option for a simple design such as this but seems awfully wasteful of time as the number or complexity increases, and I'm not sure how to effectively do it.  I did, after using auto arrange, rotate some pieces around and put them where I wanted them however, to my frustration, If I made some changes things would shuffle around and I was back to square one.

@jhackney1972 What you've shared seems straight forward enough. However, that is what I've been doing and it will not nest.  I note differences between your Arrange Dialog Box and mine. I do not show the Solver Type nor a Grain Direction or Multi Envelope option as shown in your demo. (perhaps grain direction is only available if "WOOD" is preselected as appearance)  

Finally, I wanted to be able to do a screen cast of the issues I am experiencing so as to more easily share..... I searched and found that they discontinued discontinued that option. How are you doing your screen casting for these demos?

Thank you for all the help!

[jhackney1972]

First of all Screencast is no longer supported by Autodesk.  You can use any number of free video capture programs, even one included with Windows, and save as a MP4 which attaches well.

You must have a Fusion 360 Subscription license, the same as I do so you have the same features.  Some of the features you see on my dialog box are Extensions which I have not purchased and are not available to me.  I am hoping the setting in the Preferences is you issue but you will have to tell me, I outline this in the video.

My method of making an oversize sketch envelope may not be everyone method but it allows me to make sure all is arranged properly before I start defining my exact sketch envelope.  It is all a matter of taste and process.

Your model works fine with interior arranging working as well.

[jfeyers]

Thank you for the quick reply! The clarification on the dialog boxes was clear and correct. I do not have the 3d arrange option turned on (I do recall looking at that the other day). What you have shown so far is what I have been able to do already.  The problem is that the two medium size (full shelves) need to nest within two of the other base rings and even when I size the sheet down with only one ring and one shelf to nest, it will not force the shelf to nest within the ring.  Ultimately, I want to force the two "wing shelves" to nest within one ring, and the top and middle shelves to nest in two of the other rings.... this would leave a remaining ring for some additional components I have planned. Also, I need to force most of it to remain in line with the long edge of the sheet for grain direction purposes. The legs will have to nest together.  I have previously used the arrange function successfully with boxy shapes but this slight variation seems to be too much for it to calculate. Please let me know if you are able to Force a shelf within one of the base rings. Aside from twitching the border around hoping to hit the lottery, is there any other way to coax it into position.  I have my part spacing at .25 which is too little but even that would not work.  Thanks

[TrippyLighting]

@jfeyers to create screencasts I use OBS , but there are any number of online video recorders available.

I would encourage you to create a screencast, so I have some data that I can tag a Fusion 360 team member.
 

They are very interested in data and feedback that highlights potential for improvements. 

[jfeyers]

@TrippyLighting Thank you for the suggestion. I will definitely look into OBS. I don't feel there is anything I could possibly add to give more clarity by doing an additional screencast at this time. I have included the model, a very precise description of the end goal, along with the screencast @jhackney1972 did featuring my model in question, their is no additional information.

My only solution at this point appears to be to move each individual component to a single plane within the modeling environment and not even attempt to use ARRANGE as it doesn't seem to be capable of handling putting a donut hole back inside a donut even when those are the only two items selected and the space allowed is only big enough to fit them one way.  Please tell me if I am completely missing something here.

I am not opposed to doing it manually if you have some hints as to the most efficient way of doing it.

Much appreciated!

[HughesTooling]

---

@jfeyers wrote:

My only solution at this point appears to be to move each individual component to a single plane within the modeling environment

I am not opposed to doing it manually if you have some hints as to the most efficient way of doing it.

Much appreciated!

---

@jfeyers  Are you creating manufacture models so you can arrange in the manufacture workspace and leave your assembly intacted in the design workspace? If you're going to arrange manually are you using joints and may be joint origins so you can do it accurately?

[jfeyers]

@HughesToolingYes, I created a manufacturing model to use the arrange feature.  But if the arrange feature isn't working as I need, is the manufacturing model even necessary? I would imagine it would be just as easy to make a copy of my assembly, move it over and lay it flat and move/rotate pieces where I want them.  For a simple design like this, I could've been done long ago. I'm burning through a lot of time simply trying to learn the program and it appears to me that it is intentionally hobbled by autodesk.  There is a $1600 option to fix it. LOL  Sorry, I am not sure what you mean by using joints for this.  I have played with them a little in another design but not very familiar with them yet.

Thanks!

[jhackney1972]

In my first post I mentioned you can use the Nesting and Fabrication Extension on a Daily Basic for a nominal price.  Is this an option for you to at least try it out?

[jfeyers]

Thanks @jhackney1972, I did see that option. I appreciate your effort here.

**RANT incoming!**

HMMMMmmmm $33 worth of tokens to perform a task that if done manually would take a handful of minutes (in the hands of a more experienced user). I am a hobbiest!  This is a blatant money grab! On top of that, I just now realize that I have 100 cloud credits (which I was unaware of) I also now see that they will be expiring by they end of the month and will be replaced with Magic Tokens. So, on top of this frustration, I will now be losing $300 worth of value that I wasn't even aware I had access to. I guess I will be trying the daily because I don't want to waste the tokens.  This has been the most painful software experience I have ever had! I opted to PAY to learn instead of using the free version because of the limitations.  Now it is becoming clear to me that at whatever level I pay for, there will be a constant bleeding of funds and other functions I will need to pay to unlock.  I understand the power of the program but $550 per year for a program that is intentionally hobbled.... why would a "feature" cost me more per year than the actual program? To me that is like buying a car for $50k but finding out after the purchase that if you want to make right hand turns it's going to cost you an additional 3X the original price of the car. (PER YEAR NO LESS!)  

Do a search for "HOW MUCH DOES FUSION 360 COST?" and the general consensus is $545/year. They don't make it obvious that even basic functions are quite possibly hidden in the much more expensive "add-ons".  I had asked and reviewed countless sources as well as autodesk whether it was going to cover my needs for cutting sheet goods on a cnc router. My advice to others would be to go with a VECTRIC Aspire before falling into this trap. In their defense, part of the reason for going this route originally, instead of Vectric was because of the free version and the support for 3D printing which I already had solutions for but the ability to do it all with one program was quite attractive.

RANT OVER! LOL

[TrippyLighting]

Sooooo .... you feel that the nesting functionality should be free because you have not yet developed the skills to arrange these few components manually? 

[jfeyers]

@TrippyLighting , Not at all! I have $800 into this program so far and it can't put a doughnut hole back in the donut. I realize that I don't have enough experience to have super high expectations of speed/efficiency while using this program but I spent a lot of time trying to research my options and did not jump into this lightly.  I was under the impression that a BASIC nesting feature was included with the program. I know there are many others out there who agree with me.  I am more concerned that, regardless of price, I have been trying to find a solution to a simple problem since last week. It would have been nice if the time I spent trying to schedule phone support hadn't failed, the multiple chat sessions with tech support hadn't failed, and the eventual answer on email hadn't simply given me vague answers pointing me to youtube videos on the ARRANGE feature (I feel I've watched a ton and it's very difficult to find anything recent) and the ADVANCED NESTING which I haven't seen much content on yet.  I did reply to that support email directing them to this thread for more information but haven't received a reply.  

As I have said, I DO APPRECIATE the attempt at help from this community!  Please don't belittle my frustration with the lacking services for the cost.  I am sharing my experience and it may not be the same as yours but it doesn't mean that it is not valid.

I even blew the 11 credits on the advanced feature so that wouldn't be an excuse.  So far, I'm getting the same results, but hey I have 20 hours left on my one day purchase to figure it out and I'm optimistic! To be clear, it's not that I couldn't do it manually, it is that I want to learn to use and take full advantage of the features I expected to have in this software.

Sooooo, If you feel it is my lack of experience that is the problem here, then please step up your game and simply share the answer so we may all learn something. 

[seth.madore]

---

@jfeyers wrote:

I was under the impression that a BASIC nesting feature was included with the program. I

---

There is, it's called Arrange, and it's a basic nesting feature. As you observe, there are limitations to it and not always the perfect solution for every nesting task.

[tom_bell_autodesk]

Thanks for sharing the file @jfeyers. There does indeed appear to be an issue with the Arrange feature - the "TopShelf" does not nest inside the "BaseRing" despite sufficient clearance to do so. 

I've reported the issue to our development team for further investigation (internal ticket: FUS-124244). In the meantime, the best workaround would be to use Arrange to lay everything flat and then finish up the nesting manually.

[jfeyers]

@tom_bell_autodesk, Thank you. I want to be clear that I have not been able to accomplish this task even using my Day Pass on the ADVANCED NESTING. Does it suffer from the same flaw?  I haven't been able to play with it much but it is definitely not very intuitive and seems it would rather spread everything over multiple sheets before it even considers internal nesting.

Is the ADVANCED NESTING plug-in the ONLY option which provides the ability to ACCURATELY nest parts on multiple sheets?

[jfeyers]

@seth.madore Thank you. What i meant is while researching and determining my likely needs for a large bed router I must have misled myself into believing that arranging some basic shapes onto a sheet or two of plywood was reliably possible. Maybe not on the FREE personal version but certainly on the paid version.... it does not.

[tom_bell_autodesk]

@jfeyers Thanks for the update. I just checked, and the same issue appears with the Nesting extension as well. "TopShelf" does not want to nest inside "BaseRing".  I'll add a comment about this in the same ticket I logged earlier today.

To answer your question:

Is the ADVANCED NESTING plug-in the ONLY option which provides the ability to ACCURATELY nest parts on multiple sheets?

---

You should be able to do what you're trying to do with just the Arrange feature, but because of this issue (FUS-124244) you'll have to do some manual nesting. Please feel free to send me an email reply in our case if you need some further assistance with that manual workaround. Thanks

[TrippyLighting]

@jfeyers I've not seen a  reply from you in a few days. If you're still interested, I can create a screen cast how to arrange this manually.