Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Add tangential extensions in turning. There are many times I am dealing with diameters or faces that will have stock left on them after turning. Sometimes it may be grind stock or maybe just semi-finish the turning then do milling and them back to lathe. With out tangential extensions it becomes difficult to extend the tool path to include the extra stock with out creating an extra sketch.
@scottmoyse also the fusion one has more that just "accepted" or "gathering support" as idea status. Other description could clarify a status. You could easily end up with an extremely long list of gather support.
Honestly, this one is clearly at the top of the users on the idea station. So, It will be on the top of the list when the guys finish what they have on their plate.
@scottmoyse Please help make turning improvements a higher priority.
Fusion 360 is awesome, but I'm not sure what the fundamental paradigm is behind turning (my impression is there is an emphasis placed on automating things). I've been programming CNC lathes for 20 years. I've used about ten different CAM packages during that time. When it comes to CNC turning, ability to control the lead-in and lead-out is extremely important to a programmer. This includes tangential extensions as well as the angle of approach/exit.
Truth be told, automation is cool but every CNC programmer wants the ability to draw a a 2D sketch and have 100% confidence that the CAM package will follow it. It is extremely frustrating when the automation gets in the way of doing such a simple thing.
I would be happy to show you how other CAM packages address the basics - just let me know when you want to get together.
@Anonymous my views exactly. I have asked for this for probaby 4 years now. Since before the days of ADSK. @porsbym said it was added to list and expected to work on it soon. @al.whatmough said it was clearly at the top of the list over a year ago.
I saw it was marked off on the RoadMap so I asked but @jeff.pek said it was not done after all.
I can only assume it is becoming more difficult than they had anticipated due to exactly what you mention and that is the attempt to automate and force rules on leads.
There are areas now that ignore the "Fixed lead setting" How does that make any sense. If I check Fixed then it should be Fixed.
@al.whatmough@Lonnie.Cady Fusion360 is such a great product, but the CAM side is limited in regard to turning for the reasons mentioned above. Recently, we introduced Fusion360 at work (major manufacturer of orthopedic devices) and I've received positive feedback on the milling CAM. There would be MANY more opportunities to use the software if the turning portion was on par with milling. The sooner this is addressed, the better.
@brad_francola I have been very critical of the turning , however I must say it has made some significant improvements recently. I think the team has begun to realize how important it is to have a complete package.
@al.whatmough@Steinwerks Yes, it would be awesome to get an update. I've spent the past week sitting in ESPRIT training and the whole time I was there, I kept thinking "Fusion 360 has such a better interface - if only they had a better turning package..." If the lead-in / lead-out functionality could get fixed, that would be a HUGE step in the right direction.
@Anonymous @Steinwerks,
Did you see Al's response less than a month ago. Sounds like it is back to the drawing board.
I got an email from someone at ADSK that stated they were not really sure what I was wanting and thought maybe their solution was more complex than needed. I have tried to explain it, but you may want to clarify your needs on it. Seems to be much more complex than I ever imagined. I just wanted a simple way to extend the initial and final cut direction to account for stock or part tolerance.
@al.whatmough@Steinwerks I have access to several high-end CAM systems. Regarding lead-in / lead-out there seems to be some "norms" across all the different platforms. Here are examples of how Lead-in should work. Lead-out will be very similar. Parallel and Perpendicular are relative to the first element of the chain. Horizontal, vertical, angle and custom are relative to the X Z coordinate system.
@Lonnie.Cady Sorry - I forgot to include you on the response. I attached pictures. I hope someone from Autodesk is looking at this. This problem seems like it should be easy to fix.
