Autodesk Answer day: The Future of HSM

[ArjanDijk]

Because it is Autodesk Answer Day, I think its a good moment to ask some questions to development/support about the future of the software. I think we can collect them in one topic. Hopefully some Autodesk guys will reply.

1. When can we expect a real API in inventor HSM and Fusion 360 where we can access CAM parameters and that enable us to get a higher level of automation then is possible now?
2. I heard that on OTX is stated that there is a big focus on Machine simulation in the development team. Can you tell us what we can expect?
3. Turning can use much enhencements as is stated in other topics, what priority does it get?
4.  @al.whatmough showed in a presentation something about big data/knowledge sharing about feeds and speeds. Is something going to happen in the near future?
5. In the same presentation was something showed about closed loop machining (returning the adjustments after measuring to the cam system en automatically update the toolpath in the CAM system). What can we expect and is it in the near future?
6. Where do you see Featurecam/Powermill/HSM in the future. Will all the technology go to Fusion? Or will Featurecam/Powermill be the ultimate upgrade to HSM?

[balsmen · Accepted solution]

Hi @ArjanDijk,

While I can't answer everything you asked and will have to defer to @al.whatmough and/or @jeff.pek, I can answer a couple of them ( a little out of order 😞

3. For Turning, this is our main priority right now in terms of improvements and you will start to see a lot of this effort show up in the upcoming HSMWorks/Inventor HSM/Fusion 360 updates. I can't comment about which exact features and dates, but it is a high priority for us now.

4. Along with the turning efforts, we have outlined a plan to move forward with multiple feeds and speeds in the Tool Library, and how we can also learn from that data to provide better inputs and defaults to users in the future. Be on the lookout for possible mock-ups of this area so that we can gain some user feedback here so we know we are on the right track for what you want!

2. Machine simulation/configuration is also a big priority for us looking forward, but it is still in the design/overall architecture phase and is a bit further out, but we do hope to make some tangible progress towards this in the not so distant future. Again, hopefully Al or Jeff can provide some more tangible input here on what to expect and exactly how far out.

I can't really comment on the others, but hopefully this gives you a bit more information.

Thanks,

Noah

[ivan.stanojevic]

Hi,
Is there a plan to implement multi-point probing and measuring?

[ArjanDijk]

Hi @balsmen,

Thanks for the answers so far. I know some external parties are working on machine simulation, like the one in this video:

Are you saying that Autodesk is planning to fix internally, so included in the CAM product?

[al.whatmough · Accepted solution]

@ivan.stanojevic - Multipoint probing is not something that is on the near-term roadmap. 

@ArjanDijk - Yes, Machine simulation is on our radar.  That said, at this point, we will not be able to start working on it at least until late this year.  

Solutions from partners will always be of value as these solutions are also helpful for double checking things before running code on a machine.

[rgollob]

I'm also interested to know if any of the advanced features of Powermill will be added to the HSM platform as the 5 axis features in HSM seem very limited compared not only to Powermill but other software's as well.

And machine simulation is a must add!! Correct me if im wrong, but HSMworks already has this feature. I remember watching a webinar with a UMC-750 simulated right inside the software.   

[al.whatmough · Accepted solution]

@rgollob You are correct, HSMworks has machine simulation.  There are many many things we like about it and also other things that we would like to do differently. 

For example, today, machine simulation in HSMWorks is tied closely to a SolidWorks Assembly.  We like this approach for authoring the machine simulation model.  However, we would like the definition of this machine simulation model to be a neutral format that can be used in any of the CAM solutions.  Also, the collision detection is using SolidWorks collision detections.  In all honestly, this is too slow for machine simulation workflows.

The above leads me to the next point, what are we doing with the Powermill team.  Machine simulation is a clear place for us to partner.

Every day we get closer and closer to becoming "One Autodesk" as this happens you will see tighter and tighter integration between teams both in terms of sharing technology and creating better connections between products.  We know these things can't happen overnight.  So, as a first step, we would like to be able to pass natural toolpath data between the products to streamline workflows and give HSM users access to advanced technology.  At the same time, we are working to bring over technology as it makes sense to do so.  On the HSM side, we have worked hard to make the Adaptive clearing kernel ready for consumption by the Powermill team.  On the Powermill side, they are working hard to make their kernels more accessible.

I simply do need to transparently caution you not to leave with the expectation that these things will happen overnight.

I hope this helps.

Cheers,

Al

[keith_clausen]

---

@ArjanDijk wrote:

Hi @balsmen,

Thanks for the answers so far. I know some external parties are working on machine simulation, like the one in this video:

Are you saying that Autodesk is planning to fix internally, so included in the CAM product?

---

What third party software is this simulation?

[keith_clausen]

@al.whatmough "Multipoint probing is not something that is on the near-term roadmap." Has there been any discussion regarding the implementation of something like Renishaw's Productivity+ ? At this point Productivity+ is integrated in two other mainstream CAM systems and I am evaluating the standalone version "AE Pro" an seems to be a great solution. Leave the probing to the people that specialize in probing.

[scottmoyse]

Can you give us an update on 5 Axis surfacing toolpaths  - currently there is a big price jump for a few features, especially for Inventor users

[scottmoyse]

How is HSMWorks probing coming along?

[scottmoyse]

Is a HSMWorks replatform still on the radar? I've recently had a user move companies from where they used Inventor, to where they use Solidworks. It's been interesting discussing the differences with him, both pluses and minuses.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@scottmoyse

Awesome discussion CAD and CAM wise.

We use both simultaneously. 

[al.whatmough · Accepted solution]

@scottmoyse Some nice and direct questions, I would expect nothing less from you.  Thank you for contributing to the open dialog!

Is a HSMWorks replatform still on the radar?

At one point, the goal of the development team as to attack this as one large project.  Instead, we have chosen to divide this up into a series of smaller projects.  With each project taking one step closer to a unified experience.  You should have seen some recent examples of this with the allow grooving modes in HSMWorks.  We are also on track to bring the 2 Axis wrapping into HSMWorks this Quarter with a goal of adding probing in the following Quarter.  Dare I bring it up, work is speeding up on tool library with multiple user enactments as well as multiple cut parameter per tool around the corner.  This will allow us to consolidate on the tool library.

How is HSMWorks probing coming along?

This Quater the focus has been on 2D Wrapped features in HSMWorks.  Next Quater we will work on probing.   (regardless of replatforming, probing is a separate beast)

Can you give us an update on 5 Axis surfacing toolpaths  - currently there is a big price jump for a few features, especially for Inventor users

I agree - the gap is large.  The gap is better aligned in Fusion 360 where +2 and wrapping is also part of the highest tier.  Blend continues to be our focus for 5 Axis Strategies.  As mentioned below, we all had hoped for this to have progressed faster than it has.  That is no negative comment against the developers working the problem.  It is simply a harder problem that anticipated.  At the same time, as mentioned below, our integration with the former Delcam team gets better and better every day.  #oneAutodesk

[scottmoyse]

Thanks Al. Some exciting stuff just around the corner. I can't wait to be able to combine the 2D & 3D 4-axis toolpaths in HSMWorks. 

With the delay of Blend, can we please have some serious reconsideration regarding putting Flow into the HSM branch of the kernel? I think most of us respect the need to get Blend right, and appreciate the effort that's going on in the background to achieve that. But in the meantime, Flow would solve so many problems in the interim. I don't see the harm in having Flow and Blend in the product at the same time. 

[scottmoyse]

---

@Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote:

@scottmoyse

Awesome discussion CAD and CAM wise.

We use both simultaneously. 

---

I get a real kick talking about it on the CAD side. 

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

---

@scottmoyse wrote:

Thanks Al. Some exciting stuff just around the corner. I can't wait to be able to combine the 2D & 3D 4-axis toolpaths in HSMWorks. 

With the delay of Blend, can we please have some serious reconsideration regarding putting Flow into the HSM branch of the kernel? I think most of us respect the need to get Blend right, and appreciate the effort that's going on in the background to achieve that. But in the meantime, Flow would solve so many problems in the interim. I don't see the harm in having Flow and Blend in the product at the same time. 

---

I think part of the problem with posting flow to Inventor and Fusion 360 is that it's not just flipping a switch. If it takes weeks of development the question is if you get something quicker in that case.

[scottmoyse]

---

@Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote:

---

I think part of the problem with posting flow to Inventor and Fusion 360 is that it's not just flipping a switch. If it takes weeks of development the question is if you get something quicker in that case.

---

I totally understand it's not just a case of flipping a switch. From a toolpath standpoint there shouldn't be much trouble at all, surely. User interface elements, and UI input into that element of the kernel would need to be developed. I would imagine that would be done a lot quicker than getting Blend up to the same useability and stability level of Flow in HSMWorks. 

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

---

@scottmoyse wrote:

---

---

I totally understand it's not just a case of flipping a switch. From a toolpath standpoint there shouldn't be much trouble at all, surely. User interface elements, and UI input into that element of the kernel would need to be developed. I would imagine that would be done a lot quicker than getting Blend up to the same useability and stability level of Flow in HSMWorks. 

---

Not sure if the surface info is the same in Inventor as in SolidWorks. I mean it might actually be more model to kernel problems than one would expect.

[jeff.pek]

Flow is actually not implemented as deeply in the kernel as some of the other strategies, so there's more "UI" work involved than might be the case for others. That said, it's not really reinventing anything -- it's "just porting". This is on our near-term roadmap.

Jeff