Tool orientation - allow different from toolpath projection orientation

[Rob.Lockwood]

Many of the toolpath strategies in HSMWorks are projection based; often in multi-axis milling, the optimal toolpath projection angle won't work as the tool axis. Allowing these to be defined separately would make for a much more flexible 3+2 environment, as well as go a long way toward making the existing simultaneous tilting options more viable.

Probably the most universal usage case for this is for better toolpath generation when you're axis limited, but it has further reaching implications for multi-axis stuff as well. If nothing else, look at it like this.

we're all fairly used to this situation, a parallel toolpath applied to a fillet. Stepover is massively inconsistent; yes, it would be great to get a constant scallop version instead, but this is what we've had.

Ignoring how simulate glitches with indexed stuff, this is the same operation but calculated on 45*. The important bit to pay attention to is the contact point, in this case, the toolpath is MUCH cleaner, scallops are more even, as we've effectively turned a surface that used to have 90* of transition into one with 45* of transition. If you pay attention to how multi-axis paths (specifically, contour + multi-axis tilting) calculate, they effectively do the opposite; generate toolpath from a fixed orientation, figure out the tool-axis needed to avoid collision, and correct the toolpath to the new orientation while maintaining the contact point. In this case, i'm looking to do the same, but rather than correcting to a varying tool axis based on where it collides, just let the user choose the orientation. 

In simple 3+2 stuff, this often poses additional issues; Often, a tools axis selection will be limited by other limiting factors, primarily where it can fit without collision. When tool axis is limited as such, the issue becomes projecting a toolpath into an area with high slope, and the vast majority of AutodeskCAM toolpaths, being projection based, don't deal with extreme degrees of slope well.. 

[al.whatmough]

@Rob.Lockwood this is a very insightful observation.    I will bring it up with the guys.

[ArjanDijk]

Hi Rob,

Do you mean that you can choose from the operation how the (for example) A and C axes should be rotated? Which of the 2 options? 

In that case I fully support you idea.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

No he doesn't mean that Arjan.
Ask Achim about that, you can already do what you want in the post, with looking to how you set the coordinate system in the CAM package.

Rob wants the way the path is projected onto the 3D model to be different from the tool orientation.

[al.whatmough]

@fonsecr  When you get a chance it woudl be good to get your feed back on how much work something like this would be.

[al.whatmough]

@Rob.Lockwood can you move your images up to the initial description of the idea.  I have a feeling these helpful images are going to get buried in the comments.  

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@al.whatmough

Sorry to say the lithium system only allows edit of a post or edit for 30 minutes or till it receives a reply.

So Rob can't change his post, the only way to do that is through the report feature of the forum and request the forum mods to change it.

I've asked to change this but that got responded to like I was a lunatic. 

[al.whatmough]

@Laurens-3DTechDraw, that is right.  The good news is, I have super powers as the Admin.  So, I will do it :-).

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@al.whatmough I need to find a way to get that label.

[al.whatmough]

@Laurens-3DTechDraw come work for Autodesk 🙂

[Rob.Lockwood]

Thanks for correcting the images @al.whatmough 

The expanded ask version of this would include options to tilt towards an axis/line/point. I understand that's a slightly different request, but it's still along the same logic. The core aspect of all of this is the separation between the toolpath vector and tool orientation/axis; Much of the time there's alot of logic to having them tied together, but there are loads of instances where having them separate is of immense value. If @fonsecr needs more instances where it's useful

[scottmoyse]

Sexy

[Rob.Lockwood]

@fonsecr oh and this one too!

[al.whatmough]

This is an excellent idea.  Moving this to under review to communicate that we agree with the idea.  However, we need to look into the technicals of completing the work.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@al.whatmough Nice.

Sounds easy and tricky enough at the same time.