Add and enhance rest machining to all operations

[JetForMe]

It seems some CAM operations, like 2D adaptive clearing, can't do rest machining. In my case, I'm doing two subsequent adaptive clearing passes, one with a large tool, one with a smaller tool. Some users have proposed doing other clearing operations in between adaptive ones, but that seems like a clunky workaround.

I'm not sure why Fusion 360 can't just support rest machining on all operations.

On top of this, the rest option on the operations that do support it ask for input about the previous tool size. But this should be available to the CAM engine by way of the previous operations. In cases where the previous operation didn't machine anything (say, because a selected pocket was too small for the selected tool), subsequent rest operations are skipped, even if the tool is small enough to enter the pocket. In those cases, the tool path should be designed to enter the pocket safely given that it is full of material.

In fact, all operations should be rest operations, shouldn't they? At least by default?

Thanks!

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

Rest machining like you want it is already possible in the 3D Operations.

Due to the 2D operations not being model/stock aware these can't support rest machining without you giving in what has been removed already.

Therefor I suggest you try the 3D operations.

[JetForMe]

Well, I guess my question, then, is why are they not stock-aware? If 3D can do it, surely so can 2D. This is the enhancement I'm asking for.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

Why do you not want to use the 3D Strategies?

I mean making the 2D operations stock/model aware is making them into the 3D operations and therefor have duplicate operations.

[JetForMe]

Then why bother having 2D and 3D operations? I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

@JetForMe So you want the 2D operation to act like the 3D one and than say that doesn't make sense?

The whole advantage of having 2D operations is that they aren't fully model and stock aware. You can make them do what you want. Mainly used for finishing when you also have the possibility of using the 3D features. (HSMXpress and HSM Express don't have those options and therefor are limited to 2.5D.)

I use the 2D Pocket or 2D Adaptive for finishing but for the roughing the 3D Features are much easier to set-up and fully model and stock aware.

Finishing one side face is easier with a 2D Contour than with a 3D Contour. Using Cutter compensation is possible in 2D Finishing. Finishing a bottom face of a pocket can be easier with a 2D Pocket than the horizontal at times.

So there are a lot of cases where 2D is advantageous to have, but I don't see why you need model awareness to be in the 2D operations and therefor take away their power when you have the 3D operations for free in Fusion 360.

[JetForMe]

Insofar as 2D operations should not cut air, yes, I want them to act like 3D operations. Some of them already do. I see no reason why a 2D operation can't also be fully model and stock aware. For that matter, there really should be no distinction between 2D and 3D. 2D is merely a subset of 3D.

There's no reason I can't have the best of both worlds in one consistent set of operations: I should be able to choose no geometry, in which case it acts like 3D operations; I should be able to choose geometry, in which case it acts like 2D operations. In all cases, I should be able to tell it to skip cutting air or not.

I should be able to use cutter compensation in all operations.

The advantages to 2D just sound like missing things in 3D. In all cases, stock awareness is crucial to avoiding redundant cutting operations.

In my ops, I'm going from larger tools to smaller tools. The intent is both to cut material as quickly as possible, and to reduce wear on tools. If I cut my entire model with a 1 mm end mill, it would take hours longer, and I'd probably wear out my end mill. This is true regardless of whether or not the operation is 2D or 3D.

There are more limitations in F360. If I set up a series of 3D operations to accomplish the above, but some of the pockets are too small for the initial tools, then subsequent, smaller tools skip the pockets, even though they can enter them.

All of these little issues vastly increase the complexity of the app, they increase the learning curve, and they make it likely more people will do things more inefficiently.

This Ideastation post is my request to improve on that.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

"There are more limitations in F360. If I set up a series of 3D operations to accomplish the above, but some of the pockets are too small for the initial tools, then subsequent, smaller tools skip the pockets, even though they can enter them."

This most probably has to do with the ramp settings. If a tool does or doesn't go in an uncut pocket has nothing to do with previous operations.

"In my ops, I'm going from larger tools to smaller tools. The intent is both to cut material as quickly as possible, and to reduce wear on tools. If I cut my entire model with a 1 mm end mill, it would take hours longer, and I'd probably wear out my end mill."

I Do this all the time that's probably why I don't understand your issue here.

"I should be able to use cutter compensation in all operations."

That's just impossible.

@al.whatmough Could you explain here why we have 2D Non-stock aware operations and 3D Operations and not just one operation for everything?

[JetForMe]

It's not at all impossible to have cutter compensation everywhere. It's just a calculation, like any other.

[Laurens-3DTechDraw]

Come to Autodesk University and let the developers explain to you why you can't have cutter compensation in a 3D Adaptive for example. (And near to impossible in some other operations.)

[JetForMe]

Be that as it may, the current plethora of operations and inconsistencies among them could be greatly enhanced. My request stands.

[al.whatmough]

I can see the point here.  However, the truth is, this has to do with the difference between "2D" and "3D" strategies.

AS Laurens points out 2D strategies are driven by the selected geometry will 3D are driven by the model.

The power of 2D strategies is that you have control to manipulate the toolpath.

For this request, we should rather focus on adding functionality to 3D strategies for prismatic parts.

For now, I will need to archive this.

[JetForMe]

I still don't see why a 2D strategy isn't just a constrained subset of 3D strategies, or why you can't enhance 3D strategies to allow geometry specification. After all, any "geometry" you select is really just a part of the "model." The computer has all of the information necessary to compute the appropriate tool paths.

There are plenty of 2D strategies that support rest machining. I don't understand why they all can't. In fact, it should be much easier in 2D strategies to determine what's left behind from the previous operation than in the 3D strategies.

If "archiving" means "move this request to a black hole where it's forgotten," then I guess you have to do what you have to do.

I'd still like to find  a good solution to my problem: efficient machining of simple extruded type. That means starting with larger tools and working your way down to smaller tools without cutting air. Seems like a very basic problem that should've been solved by now. I still haven't been able to make it work in Fusion 360.