Drawing tool freezing

[robbery525]

I have a relatively simple part I am trying to get a drawing made up for so I can have a friend with a machine shop make it for me. The problem is the drawing tool keeps freezing randomly.

I was able to add in my part, dimension a few things, but yesterday it straight up froze F360 without windows ever seeing it as 'Not responding'. F360 becomes completely unresponsive. This occurred when I went to add a drawing view of the side-profile of the part.

Today, I was able to dimension the side-profile. But I used the 'Insert Image' function, and the image did insert, very small though. So I used the 'scale' function in the UI, and it just locked up completely.

I would attach the screenshots, but the website is refusing to upload images.

Pics here:     https://imgur.com/a/CMK8ypg

[g-andresen]

Hi,

I see only a sketch but no object or derived drawing.

Please share the file.

File > export > save as f3d on local device  > attach it to the next post.

günther

[robbery525]

The sketch shown was the picture I was attempting to add to the drawing page. One picture was the img itself, one was the state that F360 froze in. In that imgur album there was also a picture of the after-effects of f360 crashing. Despite f360 closing, some of the assets remains on the top of the desktop.

Attached is the F3Z file. These are various versions of a single design i was experimenting with for 3D printing. The component that I am attempting to make a drawing of is:

[File]> Machined Part:1 >Countersunk.

All bodies / components are effectively ignored as far as the drawing is concerned.

[TheCADWhisperer]

These holes are not threaded correctly - that is as far as I progressed.

In the image above note the difference between left and right hole.

[robbery525]

As I said, they were originally designed for 3D printing. SO I added a very small chamfer so that the top layers of the print don't cause too much issues when going to start the bolts. There may be a few other quirks in the model that were based off such decisions.

Also, I have another thread that has had 0 support other than "works fine for me" from 1 person regarding threads. My copies of F360 are only registering like 5 thread types, instead of the bunch of threads in the files. The only reason I did the chamfer was because of this issue, otherwise I wouldve used the 'Metric Max tolerance' thread profile, which is great for 3d printing. But, as I said, F360 doesn't see the file (it used to, so now any projects I used it in broke after the october/november update because of said issue)

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@robbery525 wrote:

As I said, they were originally designed for 3D printing.  There may be a few other quirks in the model that were based off such decisions.

---

I would make correct modeling decisions for 3D printing (and for machining).

I am not convinced that you recognize the issue.

[robbery525]

---

@TheCADWhisperer wrote:

---

---

I would make correct modeling decisions for 3D printing (and for machining).

I am not convinced that you recognize the issue.

---

Thats a very passive aggressive, and completely unhelpful reply. I stated the reasons I made the design decisions (intial design was for 3D printing, not machining), and those modifications did help reach the goal I was hoping to achieve. Furthermore, why bother even commenting if you don't plan to help. Saying that someone doesn't recognize the issue, without pointing the issue out, is completely useless, and comes off as snobbish. How do you expect someone to fix something you perceive as an issue without telling them what the your problem with it is?

Plus, the issue pointed out has nothing to do with the freezing issue anyway, which is what I was pointing out. I didn't need model help, I was bringing light to an issue that may exist in the drawing tool.

All that said, I restarted the drawing from scratch for a third time, since the first two crashes resulted in autodesk having corrupt files and being 'unable to download file' in F360. I was able to create the drawing I needed.

EDIT: After this reply posted, I was able to see your edit, where you pasted a second screenshot after the one calling out a supposed mistake of mine. Unsure why that didn't load prior to making the reply. It appears you made threads come out the top of the chamfer to assist with lead-in. Interesting thought, but still unhelpful, IMO. I've never seen a machine shop do anything like the 'thread lead-in' on the right side of the 2nd of the image you posted. And unless you have a very large thread (which M3 is not), it won't really help with the 3D printing, since it would most likely just put some material in the way of the hole that would be counterproductive to a leadin. I stand by my design decision, as my testing has proven it is works well enough.

Plus, as I said, I wouldn't have needed the lead-in in F360 was still loading in custom threads properly. I didn't need a lead-in when that was working.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@robbery525 wrote:

How do you expect someone to fix something you perceive as an issue without telling them what the your problem with it is?

I didn't need model help, 

---

I posted images of the issue and a file demonstrating the correct technique.

I will create a video to clarify the modeling error when I get a chance.

Once that error is resolved - we can work though any remaining issues.

[robbery525]

I made an edit to that post, didn't expect you to reply so quick.

For some reason, your 'fix' didn't show in the thread until after my reply. Sorry if I came off as an ass, many of the replies to issues I've read on these forums were non-helpful or 'works fine for me' type replies. and I wasn't about to deal with that, i despite posts like that.

I appreciate you trying to help, but as I said, I wasn't looking for model help, as the model works well for what I need it to do. As a hobby user, I am not allowed to post anywhere but the 'community support' forum, so this the only location where I could post a thread that basically says "hey, your tool is freezing randomly over very minor operations".

I'll keep your 'lead-in' in mind, but as I said in my edit, I don't think its really useful for small threads like M3. Of course I'll do a test print to see if there is a difference before making that final judgment, but, as I said in my edit, I don't think it will make that big of a difference when the bolt has to cut into the plastic anyway. But I do recognize how to get the affect you show, so like I said, I'll do a test print once I get a chance.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@robbery525 wrote:

I've never seen a machine shop do anything like the 'thread lead-in' on the right side of the 2nd of the image you posted.
....since it would most likely just put some material in the way of the hole that would be counterproductive to a leadin. 

---

I have machined tens of thousands of threaded holes. Virtually all of them had lead-in through the chamfer edge.

On the contrary - just the opposite.  Your thread has material in the way of the fastener entering the hole.  Your thread does not continue out of the hole.  You have extra material that would not be there in the real world part.

I will make a video when I get a chance.

The way that I approach every problem is to go to the first sketch and examine every sketch and every feature from beginning to end - eliminating confounding variables as I go to see if I can reproduce the bug that is the real topic of the discussion.  If I happen to find basic modeling issues as I travel along that path of discovery - it seems to me to be a teaching moment to point out any issues I find so that the OP does not repeat these issues going forward.

Your thread is simply not correct.  

It is simple to correct.

[robbery525]

---

---

I have machined tens of thousands of threaded holes. Virtually all of them had lead-in through the chamfer edge.

Would that not be the affect of the actual machining process though? As in chamfer then tap? Doing it in that order will always result in what you describe, even if the model itself was done the way I had drawn it. As I said earlier, I haven't seen any that were like the picture. Obviously if the tap was run through the whole after the chamfer, then the chamfer would've been cut accordingly. 

Plus, since these are plastic printed parts in question, modeling the threads means that slightly less plastic will be used on those locations. Since printing is affected by heat and drool, these small threads rarely come out precise unless you have a very small nozzle & layer size. As in, the bolt will be cutting the threads as it goes no matter what. So while I recognize that what you propose is 'the correct way', and that after I duplicated it in my model and saw the difference and what you meant about the blockage,  but I stand by that it effectively didn't matter for this part & mfg (printing) process. Here is why:

• A 0.4mm nozzle,which is what most people print with (what most printers ship with too), having the chamfer vs the 'correct' way would be a neglibile difference in finished part.
• Many people print with a 0.2mm layer height when using a 0.4mm nozzle.The total chamfer size was a depth of 0.6mm. That would be a whopping 3 layers. With your modification to my design, that goes down to 0.39mm depth for the first thread, or 2 layers. Not exactly make or break, especially since, as I've said multiple times, the bolt would be cutting into the plastic no matter what.
• Now if someone were to print with a 0.1 layer height then yea, it would your method would be a bit better, but at a 0.2mm layer height its essentially neglibible.

No need for a video or anything else here, As I said in an earlier post, I appreciate the help, but I was able to get the drawing tool to do what I needed after dealing with a few crashes, but also without making any changes to my model.

The way that I approach every problem is to go to the first sketch and examine every sketch and every feature from beginning to end - eliminating confounding variables as I go to see if I can reproduce the bug that is the real topic of the discussion.  If I happen to find basic modeling issues as I travel along that path of discovery - it seems to me to be a teaching moment to point out any issues I find so that the OP does not repeat these issues going forward.

As a service tech, I can understand that. But to me, that violates the first part of troubleshooting: duplicate the issue. If there was a bug in the software, then fixing the 'problems' in the model is not the way to find the bug, as you would be effectively eliminating the cause of the bug if the cause was one of those problems. Which, again, was the point of this post to begin with.

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@robbery525 wrote:

---

---

I have machined tens of thousands of threaded holes. Virtually all of them had lead-in through the chamfer edge.

 Obviously if the tap was run through the hole after the chamfer, then the chamfer would've been cut accordingly. 

but I stand by that it effectively didn't matter for this part & mfg (printing) process. Here is why:

Which, again, was the point of this post to begin with.

---

In the real world - it doesn't matter whether the tap is run before or after the chamfer - the threaded hole feature will appear as in my example as machining is a subtractive process rather than an additive process.  

In Fusion - the Modeled Thread only follows the length of the cylindrical face - so if you add a countersink in the Hole Feature - the thread does not exit the part face.  While you might chase the threads and pick them up with the fastener, you also run the risk of cross-threading or at least "gumming up" the thread start.

In addition to shop floor machining experience - I also have a bit of 3D Printing experience...  ...going back to before most people had ever heard of the process.

Factors Forecasting the Effect of Rapid Prototyping Technologies on Engineering Design Education. (e...

A Walk Around the Lab - YouTube

Now, back to the original problem description - the point of the thread topic...