Announcements
Community
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Tip Radius for Face Mill

Tip Radius for Face Mill

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 🙂

15 Comments
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.

@LibertyMachine So for you it's more a naming and categorization thing. I understand where you are coming from but usually what we call a face mill has an angle on the side. Something like this: http://www.sandvik.coromant.com/en-us/products/coromill_245/Pages/default.aspx

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..

ArjanDijk
Advisor

Hi Laurens, 

 

I don't see any Face mill update in the tool library.

 

I agree with George that a tip radius would make sense.

 

I think the easiest way is to keep 1 Facemill and chose from differen inserts:

 

1. Straight/90 degrees

2. Angled insert (enter insert size and angle)

3. Round insert (enter radius)

 

 

Indeed a few of my customers are using chamfer mills and mullnose for facing, not what it should be.

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.

Rob.Lockwood
Advisor

Laurens-3DTechDraw wrote:

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.

 

 

 




@rob.Lockwoord wrote:
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. 

Rob.Lockwood
Advisor

I agree, names are and should be useless, user defined, and used for sorting/organization, not for defining where and how you can use the tool.

 

Turning would effectively have the same categories, solid turning tools and inserted turning tools, with basically the same principals applied. 

George-Roberts
Collaborator

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).

 

 

 

 

scottmoyse
Mentor

I love the insert approach and fully agree with Rob.

Rob.Lockwood
Advisor
That's a response deserving of a Kudos, Scott. Unfortunately, the
Ideastation doesn't allow Kudos to be given, so just imagine the glory.
al.whatmough
Community Manager
Status changed to: Accepted

This is in progress.  A laurens mentioned, you may have already seen it in a beta mode.

whittingham.a
Observer

Great idea with the selection of inserts.

 

All this info can go onto the set up sheets.

 

As already mentioned, I would like to be searching for a Face Mill (with Rad) rather than a Bull nose pretending to be a Face Mill.

 

 

Steinwerks
Mentor

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.

scottmoyse
Mentor

@al.whatmough should this be set to implemented now?

Can't find what you're looking for? Ask the community or share your knowledge.

Submit Idea  

Autodesk Design & Make Report