Turning Tool Orientation

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

Hi guys,

Can the tip tangent location be fixed?

It's been reported a lot of times but nothing is done about it.

Currently, the orientation box is useless.

[cj.abraham]

Is it because you want the turn the tool at an angle, but have the compensation point stay in the same place?

If so, you would want to change the tool orientation in the toolpath, not the tool definition.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@cj.abraham

You want the compensation point to stay at the same place compared to the tool.

Now it's somewhere useless.

No way you can measure or use the current point it makes at 45 or 30 degrees.

So the compensation point should stay like it does in Fusion 360.

[cj.abraham]

If you change the orientation in the toolpath, the compensation point  does stay in the same place.

[narzinskin]

That doesn't make it right.  that's just a workaround imo

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@cj.abraham

That is true, but that's not possible in all toolpaths.

And to support the Mazak integrex post you need to have both for the thread turning for example.

@narzinskin

Very true.

[cj.abraham]

Then the issue is that the threading operation needs to support tool orientation, not that the turning tool definition is wrong.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

The tool orientation is or wrong in HSMWorks or in Fusion 360.

And I'm certain it's HSMWorks that is wrong.

You will need the tool orientation in the tool and Operation to have this working correctly.

If you don't understand how that is necessary I can try and have Achim & Rene help me explain.

See this Idea too: https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-ideas/support-for-thread-turning-tools-on-45-degrees/idi-p/700046...

A DNMG Insert style for a machine with B-Axis like any Multi-Tasking machine you can't define truthfully without the Tool Orientation in the Library.

[tech]

Inventor HSM has even more issues as it will not preview the placement with the black dot in the most current version.  this used to work.

[cj.abraham]

Laurens... I understand what you're saying. What I'm referring to is the difference between how the compensation point location is being defined, and how the tool is oriented, and how we're going to make a choice in the UI to handle both.

On one hand, you have users that do no have an articulating head, and manually orient the holder such that the tool must be zeroed at this orientation. This means that the XZ tangent point is in a different place. (Right now, holders are causing compensation points to be incorrect when using angle different than 0, 90, etc., so no holder can be used for odd angles)

example:

On the other hand, your needs are slightly different because the compensation point is determined at angle different than the orientation of the tool when it being used.

Tool orientation 0 in tool definition

tool orientation 30 in operation

note that the compensation point moved with the tool:

In Fusion, the tool orientations in the tool definition AND the operation stack. In these scenarios in Fusion, the result is currently the same:

1. Tool definition orientation = 30, operation tool orientation = 0
2. Tool definition orientation = 0, operation tool orientation = 30
3. Tool definition orientation = 15, operation tool orientation = 15

That is not the way it should work. One orientation should be determining how the location of the compensation point is determined (It would make sense for this to be in the tool definition). The other orientation is how the tool is oriented while cutting (This should be in the operation).  The next option would be to have the compensation orientation angle AND tool orientation in the tool definition, which is what it sounds like you're asking for.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@cj.abraham

I know very well that I personally have different needs than others.

The trick is I've seen multiple complaints on how the HSMWorks compensation point works and none of the Fusion version. So I'm not alone in my request.

What you are saying on how it should work might be correct but you forget one major thing. We are only allowed to have 1 million-year-old ISO standard holders. So I can't define a holder like how it truly is in the library and have the correct compensation point to use tool orientation in the operation.

But above that all I think you have a different understanding from the toolpaths needed.

This path cannot be used on these types of machines. The machine does all the calculations for you, so the actual path should look the same for a tool that is at 45 degrees and at 90 or 0 degrees. The code should be the same. Whereas what you show now it isn't.

The compensation point moves with the rotation of the tool in the machine to be like what you would normally expect in a lathe.

So even though the tool is on an angle you still need the compensation to be like the blue line.

[Rob_Lockwood]

In my imagined workflow, all tools are defined in the tool library as they are touched off in the machine. Within each operation, an additional angle could be entered to alter the orientation as needed.

As such, the HSMWorks tool setup orientation actually seems to be the correct one to me; the tool point needs to be the tangency of x/z intersection with the point radius; and that's not the case in Fusion.. Tool holders themselves are currently a nuisance, as this method sets them at some arbitrary angle, and they're not even remotely accurate for (our) application anyway. Considerable work would be needed to correct that, basically abandoning the entire existing method of defining a tool holder, but it's probably necessary.

How the tool orientation within an operation behaves needs a few options, as I don't believe it is consistent across the industry where applicable. I make this assumption because NX offers options for controlling it, and I doubt they implemented it that way for the fun of it. I'm fairly sure their two options are the same as the discrepancy between HSMWorks/Fusion, where one moves the control point with the insert, maintaining it's position and rotation, and the other rotates it around the radius to the x/z tangent. I don't entirely recall though, I just know which one I use and haven't really paid attention to the others.

The NTX works using the method Laurens is describing; when a new b-axis rotation is called, the offset is updated such that the control point is rotated around the tip radius to the tangency, and the result is an offset theoretically identical to if the tool were initially setup in position.

[cj.abraham]

The turning tool holder definitions currently have the wrong effect on compensation point and tool orientation. Separate bug that needs to be fixed.

According to your picture, it is impossible for Fusion to achieve the correct result. Fusion's behavior is to turn the compensation point so that the point is in the same place regardless of the orientation, so the toolpath WILL move when the tool is turned. In Fusion:

And the Toolpaths, note that the second toolpath has changed, which you have indicated is not correct in your picture (Note the shifting in the 2nd picture):

In order to achieve what you want in the picture, this needs to happen (It is supposed to be working this way, but is not):

 This is the visual representation on the compensation point rotating around the insert tip, as Rob described, which fusion doesn't do either.

 We all agree that the compensation point is not working correctly.

[thomas.chr]

@Anonymous

This sounds that the issue we have seen with the most recent update of Windows 10 (ver. 1703 aka Creators update). It is tracked with the ticket CAM-7481).

If you notice the problem on other platforms I will be happy to know. This is definitely something that will be fixed although it has not been scheduled yet.

Thomas

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@thomas.chr

Pretty sure your response got in the wrong thread for some reason.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

---

@Anonymous.abraham wrote:

The turning tool holder definitions currently have the wrong effect on compensation point and tool orientation. Separate bug that needs to be fixed.

According to your picture, it is impossible for Fusion to achieve the correct result. Fusion's behavior is to turn the compensation point so that the point is in the same place regardless of the orientation, so the toolpath WILL move when the tool is turned. In Fusion:

And the Toolpaths, note that the second toolpath has changed, which you have indicated is not correct in your picture (Note the shifting in the 2nd picture):

In order to achieve what you want in the picture, this needs to happen (It is supposed to be working this way, but is not):

 This is the visual representation on the compensation point rotating around the insert tip, as Rob described, which fusion doesn't do either.

 We all agree that the compensation point is not working correctly.

---

With the way fusion is now. I could use the same angle in the tool library and Operation. (the tool holder looks to be straight, but at least I have the tool orientation angle which the post uses.) Now the post relies on an input box in the general tab to know the angle.

@AchimN Read through this, your Integrex post I believe looks at the Tool Orientation in the Tool library and Operation. But this fails for what you want.

[thomas.chr]

@Laurens-3DTechDraw Yes it was not very clear. I tried to reply to the post @Anonymous made above about the compensation point not being visible in the tool library.

[AchimN]

It does the right thing regarding the tool orientation, but i never got feedback regarding compensation.

The reason why I added support for both orientations is that tool orientation is not supported in every operation. So this is a workaround.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@AchimN

The conclusion is that both don't work like you need.