Answer day: Inventor HSM Flow Tool path

[rgollob]

Why haven't we seen "flow" introduced into Inventor HSM yet?

[al.whatmough]

You asked why I will answer you directly.

The flow toolpath is unlike other toolpaths that work off of a triangulated models.  Flow using the ISO curves of the of the surface to define the toolpath. As such, it needs to interact with the CAD model in a fundamentally different why then all of the other 3 axis toolpaths.

At the same time, we have been working on a "replacement" for flow that does not require the use of the ISO curves of the surface to create a toolpath.  This toolpath is called blend and is currently beta mode in Fusion 360.  

To be honest, this project is taking longer than we hoped.  At the same time, we have had a lot of continued interest in Flow.  As such, we are re-evaluating putting resources onto the work needed to support it.

I am not trying to make excuses but rather simply attempting to be fully transparent.

[lenny_1962]

---

@al.whatmough wrote:

You asked why I will answer you directly.

The flow toolpath is unlike other toolpaths that work off of a triangulated models.  Flow using the ISO curves of the of the surface to define the toolpath. As such, it needs to interact with the CAD model in a fundamentally different why then all of the other 3 axis toolpaths.

At the same time, we have been working on a "replacement" for flow that does not require the use of the ISO curves of the surface to create a toolpath.  This toolpath is called blend and is currently beta mode in Fusion 360.  

To be honest, this project is taking longer than we hoped.  At the same time, we have had a lot of continued interest in Flow.  As such, we are re-evaluating putting resources onto the work needed to support it.

I am not trying to make excuses but rather simply attempting to be fully transparent.

@al.whatmough

 And that is why it is a much better toolpath than the 3D that cuts from a stl wrap!!!

the tools then could be set to use WATERFALL so that a ball cutter can stop at the radius instead of how 3D paths use the contact now.

cutting a true surface is always better IMO

[rgollob]

---

@al.whatmough wrote:

You asked why I will answer you directly.

The flow toolpath is unlike other toolpaths that work off of a triangulated models.  Flow using the ISO curves of the of the surface to define the toolpath. As such, it needs to interact with the CAD model in a fundamentally different why then all of the other 3 axis toolpaths.

At the same time, we have been working on a "replacement" for flow that does not require the use of the ISO curves of the surface to create a toolpath.  This toolpath is called blend and is currently beta mode in Fusion 360.  

To be honest, this project is taking longer than we hoped.  At the same time, we have had a lot of continued interest in Flow.  As such, we are re-evaluating putting resources onto the work needed to support it.

I am not trying to make excuses but rather simply attempting to be fully transparent.

---

Thanks for the explanation. I'm looking forward to significant advancements in the 5 axis capabilities of Inventor HSM.  

[DarthBane55]

Thank you for the answer Al, 

however to me it is a bit incomplete.  Are you saying that it is not possible for Autodesk to implement this toolpath in Inventor because it cannot interact with the model as it can in SolidWorks?  Shouldn't it be simpler to implement in Inventor than in SolidWorks as Inventor is your own product?

[al.whatmough]

Sorry for the confusion.

I was not saying we can't do it or even that is it harder in our products.

I was just saying that it is different than the other 3D toolpaths.

With that said, it is being worked on now and we hope to have it completed this Quarter.

[DarthBane55]

That is great news!  I just found another post where you had accepted the idea for being worked on.  Thank you!

[andriy.badin]

Work on Flow is currently in progress. Not even in Beta mode yet, but we do have some, as I put it, "walking skeleton" - not too pretty, couple of bones are missing - but it is walking.

[DarthBane55]

At least we now know it's coming, which is a great news, very useful toolpath.  

[andriy.badin]

Another teaser of how "Flow" is coming to Inventor HSM on your computers in the nearest future.

[lenny_1962]

why did you turn off stepover? doesn't work?

[andriy.badin]

"Stepover" option in the UI is just a check box that does not have any functionality behind it at the moment.

On other hand, in terms of parity of functionality with HSMWorks - there is no option of fixed stepover in HSMWorks, only number of steps. And this is what we are targeting to implement in Inventor HSM.

[lenny_1962]

---

@andriy.badin wrote:

"Stepover" option in the UI is just a check box that does not have any functionality behind it at the moment.

On other hand, in terms of parity of functionality with HSMWorks - there is no option of fixed stepover in HSMWorks, only number of steps. And this is what we are targeting to implement in Inventor HSM.

---

If you are in beta in HSMWorks you have the stepover option but it is a a cluster to try and get it to work correctly every time.

that is why I asked why you deselected the box 😬

[Steinwerks]

---

@andriy.badin wrote:

"Stepover" option in the UI is just a check box that does not have any functionality behind it at the moment.

On other hand, in terms of parity of functionality with HSMWorks - there is no option of fixed stepover in HSMWorks, only number of steps. And this is what we are targeting to implement in Inventor HSM.

---

It's been in beta mode for ages in HSMWorks:

[andriy.badin]

Technically entire "Flow" strategy in Inventor is not even in Beta. So implementation of "Beta inside of Beta" is not getting the highest priority. With that said, we do not plan to make this option available outside of Beta mode. Atleast not yet. Would it be a deal breaker?

[Steinwerks]

@andriy.badin

I think stepover is integral to the idea of surfacing unless you implement a cusp height option. I am not an InvHSM user, but I presume the toolpath will be the same in F360 and eventually all three products will be at parity, and so yes, I think it is a dealbreaker on some level. Control is paramount to these sorts of operations in terms of finish quality.

I believe that Blend will receive stepover functionality though, right? I really do wish for more cusp height feedback though as well.

[andriy.badin]

@Steinwerks Point taken. As I said - achieving parity with HSMWorks on non-beta functions is first priority. Users' opinion helps us to determine direction of future development. Fixed stepover will definitely be considered.

With regards to "Blend", I think @BjoernJohnsson is the best person to ask about it.

[DarthBane55]

I agree that a stepover value or cusp height is really important.  Flow has more flexibility than blend imo, because it has 5-axis capability, which is really handy for us.

[al.whatmough]

Blend is 5X also.

[DarthBane55]

Oh great!  I don't have access to blend (inventor), good to know!