. .

Thread: Stock on facing

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by dfox1787 View Post
    thats correct. i would it expect it to know i already removed .45mm from the facing operation. I have to add a offset of -.45 for the tool path to start at the correct depth but it still pockets -2.45 which is going to make the the pocket deeper than it should be. At the moment the only way i can see is to leave it cutting nothing but it adds machining time. . To me it should know have took that into consideration.

    Unless there is a setting im missing.
    First of all, You haven't given us quite as much information as I would like - a screenshot showing the CAM model with the various heights shown would help, along with a copy of the setup/operations list on the LH side of the screen. So what I say here is guessing at what these might show but this is based on my own use of F360 (which I use a lot for design and CAM).

    Based on what I think you are doing, two quick answers. First of all, F360 is doing exactly what you told it to. No more and no less. Secondly, it will cut your pocket to exactly the correct depth as you have it; the simulation shows the pocket depth being 2.45mm deep. That's not an error - in the operation tab, you told it to work with top height equal to stock top - and the pocket is 2.45mm deep from stock top. Best way to fix this is just to change "top height" to reference model top, not stock top. That should work OK.

    What I am not sure about because I can't see exactly how you have set up your operations is whether it will start cutting from stock top (so cutting air for 0.45mm) or from model top. I would create one setup and then under that create two (or more - not sure what else you are doing) operations. The first is to face the stock and second is to cut the pocket. I've just thrown a quick F360 model together and tried the CAM operations. I used facing and pocket under 2D (you can use 3D pocket clearing but this just complicates things when you are really cutting a 2.5D feature) and running the simulation it seems to do exactly what you want - the pocket cut starts at the top of the model, not the stock.

    I would disagree with Nick - you might only be doing 2.5D operations (that is, essentially 2D but with a single defined depth of cut) but I don't see any issue in putting the 3D model together. It takes a minute or two to do, gives you all the F360 advantages (although this depends on what you are comparing it with) such as being able to go back to the drawing and change a dimension and have everything dependent on that automatically change or be marked to be recalculated. Nick is much more experienced than I am, as I always assume that I am going to make mistakes and F360 gives the best chance to go back and make changes without redrawing. In addition, of course, this might be just one component of a more complex 3D design in which case designing in F360 and then applying CAM to individual components for CNC manufacture is a sensible way to go. Practising on individual components makes this a good training exercise anyway.

    My model took only a few minutes to generate; it can be edited trivially, can be rotated on screen for visualisation, etc. I, personally, like working with a relatively simple-to-use 3D tool like F360, but there's plenty of scope for other views and a lot depends on what you are used to. I've been at a model engineering exhibition today, talking to quite a few professional engineers from various backgrounds from aerospace to watch-making, and everyone has their own favourites. Largely determined by what their employer has bought and standardised on, but not many people buy their own Catia or Solidworks!

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by m_c View Post
    Nick, in Fusion360, you can create a model, then use 2D toolpaths on that model by picking chains.
    Once you've got the model there's little point, I was pointing out that simple outlines at Z zero would allow him to easily do what he was asking, unfortunately he wants the software modified to work with his ideas of how it should be! :D


    Quote Originally Posted by m_c View Post
    Industry standard is you set Z zero on the surface and work downwards, but in Fusion you can set part Z zero wherever you want and adjust heights accordingly. .
    Clarity is everything, Part Surface or Stock Surface?

    In all decent modern CAM/CAM they can set Part Zero where they like, but unless they have good reason then by busking it before they can walk the inexperienced can end up on their butt by trying to run ;-)

    Rules and conventions are there for those who don't know enough to do their own thing. Those who do know enough to do their own thing don't have to ask how to do it :D

    EDIT - The OP hadn't even read the guide on the parameters and options on the paths he wanted to use? RTFM!
    Last edited by magicniner; 20-01-2018 at 09:57 PM.
    You think that's too expensive? You're not a Model Engineer are you? :D

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by magicniner View Post
    Once you've got the model there's little point, I was pointing out that simple outlines at Z zero would allow him to easily do what he was asking, unfortunately he wants the software modified to work with his ideas of how it should be! :D
    That seems a little harsh. I don't think he was asking for software to be modified, and did accept that he might have missed a setting - not difficult with the plethora of settings in F360. In this case, I think it was as simple as not spotting that the top of cut was set referenced to stock top, not part top. I think he can be forgiven this as no-one else seemed to have spotted it either. At least F360 allows you to visualise the part, refer to contours, pockets, and other features by clicking on them, making them very visible, and then simulating the cut(s), and all without leaving the package. I've used a 2D drawing package (TurboCAD) and separate CAM application; I found it clumsy by comparison and more likely (for the beginner?) to make mistakes by making them visualise what they are doing rather than being able to double-check by seeing a 3D model on screen.

    As for industry conventions - not easy unless you are actively working in the relevant industry and probably professionally trained into the bargain. As far as reference zeros, which way X and Y go, etc, I'm a firm believer that for an amateur working purely for themselves then only important convention is that you use a right-handed coordinate system with Z vertical. You can stick your zero where you like ! Seriously, doing a lot of woodwork on a router rather than mill, it makes a lot of sense sometimes to have the reference on the bed/spoilboard (less sensitivity to material height when doing full-depth profiling) and sometimes on the work surface when doing, say, engraving. I can't guarantee that the board material I buy will be sufficiently accurate from batch to batch that I could afford to assume consistency.

    (Apologies to earlier posters - I managed to miss some early posts which did comment on using the correct reference plane for the second cut. However, an inexperienced F360 user seemed to need the specific parameter to be pointed out)
    Last edited by Neale; 21-01-2018 at 09:41 AM.

  4. #24
    Sadly not harsh, repeated explanations ignored culminating in-

    Quote Originally Posted by dfox1787 View Post
    thats correct. i would it expect it to know i already removed .45mm from the facing operation. I have to add a offset of -.45 for the tool path to start at the correct depth but it still pockets -2.45 which is going to make the the pocket deeper than it should be. At the moment the only way i can see is to leave it cutting nothing but it adds machining time. . To me it should know have took that into consideration.

    Unless there is a setting im missing.

    but if the fusion doesn't calculate it that it just adds more time for me creating paths. thank you for your response as always :)
    Fusion 360 should know he's taken .45 off the stock (the top of which he's set as zero) and compensate for him but unfortunately Fusion 360 has the same problem as me, it's Crystal Ball is in for repair! :D
    You think that's too expensive? You're not a Model Engineer are you? :D

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by magicniner View Post
    Sadly not harsh, repeated explanations ignored culminating in-



    Fusion 360 should know he's taken .45 off the stock (the top of which he's set as zero) and compensate for him but unfortunately Fusion 360 has the same problem as me, it's Crystal Ball is in for repair! :D
    One of the reasons I wondered what was in the LH side of the screen is that F360 works in terms of setups, each of which can contain multiple operations. I believe (but have not checked) that some operations can be instructed to use the "as machined" rather than "raw stock" as the starting point, but only for multiple operations within the same setup group. I further believe (but have not checked) that typically this applies to 3D operations which tend to be rather more complex but not 2D but I'm happy to be told I'm wrong. So here we have someone either using 2D operations or using 3D operations without specifying that this operation should use the "as machined" state as starting point. Combined with the fact that the OP actually and very specifically told F360 to use the stock as starting height (by missing this one parameter in the operation definition) I'm erring on the side of user error rather than stupid software.

    Actually, I'm sympathetic to the OP because it took me quite a while to figure out what a lot of the CAM settings were for (and I still don't understand all of them, but usually enough to make it do what I want) and missing the significance of this one is understandable. Mild "tut, tut" rather than making him stand in the corner with his back to the class

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Neale View Post
    Mild "tut, tut" rather than making him stand in the corner with his back to the class
    I have strong doubts that someone not bothered to read the reference for one of the tool paths he's using has the slightest clue about any of that, he should read around the subject some ;-)

    And yes, RTFM and re-engage, I ate a big slice of Humble Pie over at the BobCad forum early in my inexperience and was generously helped, now I help out others where I can.

    But repeatedly telling others what the software should do without having read the documentation isn't just unproductive, it's lazy, and it's rude! :D
    You think that's too expensive? You're not a Model Engineer are you? :D

  7. #27
    m_c's Avatar
    Lives in East Lothian, United Kingdom. Last Activity: 3 Days Ago Forum Superstar, has done so much to help others, they deserve a medal. Has been a member for 9-10 years. Has a total post count of 2,908. Received thanks 360 times, giving thanks to others 8 times.
    It's probably worth mentioning, 2D and some 3D operations rely solely on user entered heights, and it's up to the user to decide what has/hasn't already been machined, and set heights accordingly.

    Some 3D operations give the option of REST machining, whereby Fusion will base the toolpath of remaining material, not the original stock, and will handle heights automatically within the tolerances set.

    It all depends on what you're trying to achieve. Basic 2D is better for some stuff, 3D is essential for some stuff, some stuff 3D makes life a bit easier/better (I.e. adaptive and trochoidal), and some stuff 3D just overly complicates things for no/marginal gain.
    Avoiding the rubbish customer service from AluminiumWarehouse since July '13.

  8. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Neale View Post
    First of all, You haven't given us quite as much information as I would like - a screenshot showing the CAM model with the various heights shown would help, along with a copy of the setup/operations list on the LH side of the screen. So what I say here is guessing at what these might show but this is based on my own use of F360 (which I use a lot for design and CAM).

    Based on what I think you are doing, two quick answers. First of all, F360 is doing exactly what you told it to. No more and no less. Secondly, it will cut your pocket to exactly the correct depth as you have it; the simulation shows the pocket depth being 2.45mm deep. That's not an error - in the operation tab, you told it to work with top height equal to stock top - and the pocket is 2.45mm deep from stock top. Best way to fix this is just to change "top height" to reference model top, not stock top. That should work OK.

    What I am not sure about because I can't see exactly how you have set up your operations is whether it will start cutting from stock top (so cutting air for 0.45mm) or from model top. I would create one setup and then under that create two (or more - not sure what else you are doing) operations. The first is to face the stock and second is to cut the pocket. I've just thrown a quick F360 model together and tried the CAM operations. I used facing and pocket under 2D (you can use 3D pocket clearing but this just complicates things when you are really cutting a 2.5D feature) and running the simulation it seems to do exactly what you want - the pocket cut starts at the top of the model, not the stock.

    I would disagree with Nick - you might only be doing 2.5D operations (that is, essentially 2D but with a single defined depth of cut) but I don't see any issue in putting the 3D model together. It takes a minute or two to do, gives you all the F360 advantages (although this depends on what you are comparing it with) such as being able to go back to the drawing and change a dimension and have everything dependent on that automatically change or be marked to be recalculated. Nick is much more experienced than I am, as I always assume that I am going to make mistakes and F360 gives the best chance to go back and make changes without redrawing. In addition, of course, this might be just one component of a more complex 3D design in which case designing in F360 and then applying CAM to individual components for CNC manufacture is a sensible way to go. Practising on individual components makes this a good training exercise anyway.

    My model took only a few minutes to generate; it can be edited trivially, can be rotated on screen for visualisation, etc. I, personally, like working with a relatively simple-to-use 3D tool like F360, but there's plenty of scope for other views and a lot depends on what you are used to. I've been at a model engineering exhibition today, talking to quite a few professional engineers from various backgrounds from aerospace to watch-making, and everyone has their own favourites. Largely determined by what their employer has bought and standardised on, but not many people buy their own Catia or Solidworks!
    Hi Neale

    Thank you for your reply.

    Sorry i am still new to fusion and current use aspire which i know functions totally different.

    You are correct in staying the the pocket operation does hover over the part if it has already been faced. I have tried to set the tool path to the top of the model which does work on the simulation. The thing that is confusing for me is that on the simulation the pocket z height still cuts to -2.45mm. (maybe this is correct)

    I did look at how to do the simple outlines function as nick asked but couldn't see how to set the cut depths but again that is probably me still not sure how the software works. With the little time i have. I spent watching online videos showing how to use fusion but i haven't yet found one where the stock is set to a fixed size because the material i will be using has these fixed dimensions.

    One thing i did notice is if i set the facing operation the last thing i did and selected the one face that would be left after the previous tool paths then there are no issues. Perhaps this is the way the software is designed and the facing is meant to be the last thing you do?. Again still learning how to use the software.

    heres a copy of my fusion file if you want to have a look.

    http://a360.co/2mUUlN4

  9. #29
    It sounds as if you have your Part Zero set as the top of the stock and the program is detecting the depth for the pocket as the difference between Part Zero and the bottom of the pocket on your solid model, are you choosing the top of your pocket as the top of your solid model without adjusting the pocket depth manually?
    You think that's too expensive? You're not a Model Engineer are you? :D

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by magicniner View Post
    It sounds as if you have your Part Zero set as the top of the stock and the program is detecting the depth for the pocket as the difference between Part Zero and the bottom of the pocket on your solid model, are you choosing the top of your pocket as the top of your solid model without adjusting the pocket depth manually?
    That would make sense.

    I'll see if I can set a new z position at the top of the part rather than the stock.

    After the facing operation the z psoisition would no longer be at the stocks surface but that of the part.


    Sent from my SM-N910F using Tapatalk

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. roundbar stock
    By dfox1787 in forum Vectric
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-01-2018, 02:51 PM
  2. where to buy stock aluminium
    By dfox1787 in forum Marketplace Discussion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 27-12-2017, 11:27 PM
  3. Metal Stock Purchasing UK
    By paul_m in forum Metalwork Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 25-05-2015, 04:42 PM
  4. RFQ: RFQ: Keyslot milling in alu round stock.
    By Saracen in forum Projects, Jobs & Requests
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-09-2013, 09:42 AM
  5. Method for holding Stock
    By Chaz in forum Machine Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 24-06-2013, 11:41 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •