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
Could we get a tip radius option added to the facemill tool definition? It would be better to have this option insead of having to define the tool as a bull nose 🙂
What software are you referring to? Inventor HSM has a true face mill now, with the possibility of adding an angle. But if you add a radius to a sharp 90 degree mill, it actually is a Bullnose mill right?
@Laurens-3DTechDraw I can only speak to what Fusion users would encounter. If I needed to define a Facemill with a radius or anything other than a 90 degree insert, I'd have to "lie" to the software and call it something other than what it is. Bull nose endmill, Chamfer mill, Taper mill, so on and so forth. So now I want to save it in my cloud library, but it's not categorized as a facemill is it? So now I have to turn on other filters to look for the tool I need. Small annoyance.
And what I meant to say was that I don't think it's smart to make all the tool categories we have in the library be able to look like all sorts of tools just because some manufacturer or user calls their tool different from 90% of people. But I must also say that the name face-mills seem to be any inserted mill that can rough material in some parts of the world for some reason.
But in Inventor HSM the facemill has already been updated. So maybe we see this in HSMWorks or Fusion 360 as well someday. And have them add the corner radius as well..
I disagree about just changing the insert for the name face mill. Since the name face mill allow certain types of moves. And you can't do the same with a 90 Degrees cutter as with a angled one if you use a facemill in other operations than face milling.
BTW. You can see the new tool in Beta mode in Inventor HSM.
I disagree about just changing the insert for the name face mill. Since the name face mill allow certain types of moves. And you can't do the same with a 90 Degrees cutter as with a angled one if you use a facemill in other operations than face milling.
BTW. You can see the new tool in Beta mode in Inventor HSM.
This is semi-related to our conversation about grooving/profiling in turning, but I think it'll be easier to describe my position in this context..
What a tool is capable of should be entirely reliant on the definition of the tool, not the category it sits beneath..
If I define a tool with an angled cutting edge, I want to be able to use that cutting edge as a chamfer. If I define a tool with a radius, I should probably be able to use that radius for 3D milling, etc. If I define a tool with both, I'd like to be able to use the same tool to do both, using the correct respective geometry. If it has a flat section on the bottom, I probably want to be able to end mill with it, etc.
Arbitrary limits that exist based on the category a tool sits beneath are pretty useless; I understand it's an easier method to implement, but a tool should really be defined by cutting sections and non-cutting sections, and basically nothing else.
This is semi-related to our conversation about grooving/profiling in turning, but I think it'll be easier to describe my position in this context..
What a tool is capable of should be entirely reliant on the definition of the tool, not the category it sits beneath..
If I define a tool with an angled cutting edge, I want to be able to use that cutting edge as a chamfer. If I define a tool with a radius, I should probably be able to use that radius for 3D milling, etc. If I define a tool with both, I'd like to be able to use the same tool to do both, using the correct respective geometry. If it has a flat section on the bottom, I probably want to be able to end mill with it, etc.
Arbitrary limits that exist based on the category a tool sits beneath are pretty useless; I understand it's an easier method to implement, but a tool should really be defined by cutting sections and non-cutting sections, and basically nothing else.
I understand your point, but that would mean names would become useless. If you allow any form in any name category, you would only need one category. So I don´t see the point in that to be honest. So you still need names and categories that help with defining the actual tool. And that some people want a shell mill to be called face mill that shouldn´t be the CAM systems problem if you ask me. Make two main categories that are Solid-Mills and Inserted-Mills and than actually look at making everything possible but don't bother with that John likes to call this a face mill while it's actually a sholder mill.
This is really for all versions of the software, but HSMWorks is the main one we are getting the feature request for. I agree with Arjan, being able to select different inserts would be ideal and would allow you to correctly set the tool. We have had this request from several different customers who are all having to use a Bull-Mill at the moment (not ideal).
Also needs a Corner Angle option. Many, many face mills are 45° lead angle, with some at 30°, 20°, 15° AND a corner radius. This really should be in the tool type instead of being restricted to a sharp corner shell mill. Right now my 45° octagonal insert face mill is defined as a chamfer mill and looks like garbage in simulation and on the setup sheet, nothing like how the tool actually appears.