Does the bar puller operation work with turret-mounted bar pullers? Or just sub-spindle stuff? That's something I'd love to have built-in. Right now it's a lot of hand-coding to have a bar puller come in, grab the bar from the side, pull the bar, and then move away and reset the cycle. Having that automation option right in Fusion would be great.
Create a Manual NC Template as a Pass Through, you can comment out what needs to be changed so its really obvious in the code. Save it and apply oi to the jobs you need and just update the W or pull length and grab position. I agree we need a turret style option in CAM though.
You could use it with a turret mounted puller, yes. But you would need to customise your post processor. I can help you with that if you want to go down that path.
The Tool Library could be further advanced. Import Tool Holder and tools like facemills, high feed mills, lathe tools from Iscar , Hoffmann etc, by Step file instead of scripsts, should be connected to the fusion library. More details in the tool holder simulations, being able to really choose the driven tool holder for Lathe for basic simulation, more power of choice when creating a lathe tool. In the Drills section in the speed and feed category, you can save the default peck. Being able to create subcategories for feed and speed of different machines. example: Mazak: VC: 110 & Fz: 0.005 dmg: VC: 250 & Fz: 0.15
It's in development / on the roadmap. With no commitment on when it will be delivered. There's a lot of tech to wire up to make it reliable and pervasive through the product. You can sign up to the Insider Program to gain some more insight.
The new grounding to parents is a bit of a pain if you have assembly with fasteners that I organized in it's own respective subassembly. Had a hard time to wrap my head around why the join command giving me trouble and what needs to be unpinned. Can you make it a bit more obvious / intuitive?
It does not even follow ISO insert nomenclature code, just accepts populat predetermined parts of it😢. Whole bunch of standard compliant inserts can't be set up because devs apparently have not heard of such insert size/angle/thickness so it must not exist😩
I wish you gave some attention to the mesh workspace too. Every vertex of a mesh object is a well defined point in 3d space. Why can't I just snap to it? Like, why can't I use three mesh vertices to snap a three point circle to? Or create an offset plane by snapping to a specific mesh vertex? Also, some more requests to cosider, maybe? Start a tangent circle from any point on a spline? Find the intersection of two surface bodies in 3d space? Lastly, in a non history enabled contextual environment, it would be so nice, if we had some curvature matching and blending functionality for surfaces. Thanks!
Have you tried some of the mesh tools available when you select Direct Edit on a mesh body? At least some of what you are asking for is more or less there already. You can find the intersection between 2 surfaces (perhaps not meshes though, but mesh isn't really CAD:P)
@@Robinlarsson83 Hey, thanks for the reply! I guess my whole point for mesh objects in F360, was that I couldn't see a reason why they should be treated as second class citizens. Until I read the last sentence of your reply, that is.
@@captivenut4122 It's not meant to be derogatory in any way, but yeah, basically Mesh editing isn't really CAD, meshes are not made in the same way as real Brep, Nurbs or other actual CAD solid or surface. Sure, each triangle in a mesh has 3 well defined points in space, but that's not really how CAD files are, they are mathematical descriptions of the model, not location data. That's why CAD files are tiny in data size, even with highly complex geometries, while even a simple mesh can take up massive amounts of data. So, editing a mesh is simple much harder for a CAD program, since they natively don't work in that way. You can compare CAD files to Vector graphics and meshes to bitmap/pixel based images. A cad file doesn't have a resolution, you can scale it and transform it without loosing anything. Meshes have a fixed resolution since it's just a collection of points in space, 3D pixels if you like.
@@captivenut4122 in fact, Fusion actually has unusually good mesh functionality for a CAD software, in my experience :) And yeah, meshes are treated as second class citizens simply because they are, or actually they are more like tourists or guest workers really :P
@@Robinlarsson83 Me coming from a Rhino3d background, would have to strongly disagree on that. But then again someone would argue that Rhino is not real CAD. An argument that would turn this whole discussion into a matter of semantics, which was definitely not my purpose when I started it. All I'm saying really, is that there seem to be so many simple things in Fusion, that could be done to make it more functional and pleasant to work with, which wouldn't even cost in terms of too much effort on the developers' side. I admit that this may not be the best place to discuss about them though.
When are we going to get deformation ops like bend, twist, taper, conform etc? Literally been asking for this for years and I am a paid subscriber. sigh
Have you looked at the tutorials in the help documentation? Fusion learning paths or under Learn on the Autodesk homepage or via some of the many Autodesk University classes available on demand.
![State of Play | September 24, 2024 [ENGLISH]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/fVs0suPHAX8/mqdefault.jpg)
Solid sweep is a fantastic addition.
Day 137 of asking for Dark Mode in Fusion
There is kinda one if you change the environment
You can
It’s there, saw a YT video somewhere last week with a guy using dark background
A quick google search, and it told me straight away how to turn on dark mode….
@@fitzfpv5684 not proper dark mode
Does the bar puller operation work with turret-mounted bar pullers? Or just sub-spindle stuff? That's something I'd love to have built-in. Right now it's a lot of hand-coding to have a bar puller come in, grab the bar from the side, pull the bar, and then move away and reset the cycle. Having that automation option right in Fusion would be great.
Create a Manual NC Template as a Pass Through, you can comment out what needs to be changed so its really obvious in the code. Save it and apply oi to the jobs you need and just update the W or pull length and grab position. I agree we need a turret style option in CAM though.
You could use it with a turret mounted puller, yes. But you would need to customise your post processor. I can help you with that if you want to go down that path.
What a huge update. Thanks for all the hard work!!
The Tool Library could be further advanced.
Import Tool Holder and tools like facemills, high feed mills, lathe tools from Iscar , Hoffmann etc, by Step file instead of scripsts, should be connected to the fusion library.
More details in the tool holder simulations, being able to really choose the driven tool holder for Lathe for basic simulation, more power of choice when creating a lathe tool.
In the Drills section in the speed and feed category, you can save the default peck.
Being able to create subcategories for feed and speed of different machines.
example:
Mazak: VC: 110 & Fz: 0.005
dmg: VC: 250 & Fz: 0.15
I use mostly shape tools and importing the tool to the library directly from Step would be a real time saver!
@@vwarrior2 exactly, even form tools would be easier that way
It's in development / on the roadmap. With no commitment on when it will be delivered. There's a lot of tech to wire up to make it reliable and pervasive through the product. You can sign up to the Insider Program to gain some more insight.
@@ScottMoyse How can i sign up ?
The new grounding to parents is a bit of a pain if you have assembly with fasteners that I organized in it's own respective subassembly. Had a hard time to wrap my head around why the join command giving me trouble and what needs to be unpinned.
Can you make it a bit more obvious / intuitive?
Can't go 5 minutes without a BBOD...
刀路限制刀具还是比较多，真正的功能就是突破限制使用刀具！
Please let us draw our own turning tool, not every turning tool is a simple normalised insert...
It does not even follow ISO insert nomenclature code, just accepts populat predetermined parts of it😢. Whole bunch of standard compliant inserts can't be set up because devs apparently have not heard of such insert size/angle/thickness so it must not exist😩
Nice additions but we can please have offset off an offset?
It's on the roadmap. They're listening 😉
I wish you gave some attention to the mesh workspace too. Every vertex of a mesh object is a well defined point in 3d space. Why can't I just snap to it? Like, why can't I use three mesh vertices to snap a three point circle to? Or create an offset plane by snapping to a specific mesh vertex?
Also, some more requests to cosider, maybe? Start a tangent circle from any point on a spline? Find the intersection of two surface bodies in 3d space?
Lastly, in a non history enabled contextual environment, it would be so nice, if we had some curvature matching and blending functionality for surfaces. Thanks!
Have you tried some of the mesh tools available when you select Direct Edit on a mesh body? At least some of what you are asking for is more or less there already.
You can find the intersection between 2 surfaces (perhaps not meshes though, but mesh isn't really CAD:P)
@@Robinlarsson83 Hey, thanks for the reply! I guess my whole point for mesh objects in F360, was that I couldn't see a reason why they should be treated as second class citizens. Until I read the last sentence of your reply, that is.
@@captivenut4122 It's not meant to be derogatory in any way, but yeah, basically Mesh editing isn't really CAD, meshes are not made in the same way as real Brep, Nurbs or other actual CAD solid or surface.
Sure, each triangle in a mesh has 3 well defined points in space, but that's not really how CAD files are, they are mathematical descriptions of the model, not location data.
That's why CAD files are tiny in data size, even with highly complex geometries, while even a simple mesh can take up massive amounts of data.
So, editing a mesh is simple much harder for a CAD program, since they natively don't work in that way.
You can compare CAD files to Vector graphics and meshes to bitmap/pixel based images. A cad file doesn't have a resolution, you can scale it and transform it without loosing anything. Meshes have a fixed resolution since it's just a collection of points in space, 3D pixels if you like.
@@captivenut4122 in fact, Fusion actually has unusually good mesh functionality for a CAD software, in my experience :)
And yeah, meshes are treated as second class citizens simply because they are, or actually they are more like tourists or guest workers really :P
@@Robinlarsson83 Me coming from a Rhino3d background, would have to strongly disagree on that. But then again someone would argue that Rhino is not real CAD. An argument that would turn this whole discussion into a matter of semantics, which was definitely not my purpose when I started it.
All I'm saying really, is that there seem to be so many simple things in Fusion, that could be done to make it more functional and pleasant to work with, which wouldn't even cost in terms of too much effort on the developers' side. I admit that this may not be the best place to discuss about them though.
When are we going to get deformation ops like bend, twist, taper, conform etc? Literally been asking for this for years and I am a paid subscriber. sigh
Hi im interested on 5 axis simultanieous please, where i can find some tutorials please
Have you looked at the tutorials in the help documentation? Fusion learning paths or under Learn on the Autodesk homepage or via some of the many Autodesk University classes available on demand.
Still can’t do multi channel. Very basic software
I bet your current 'highly advanced' software can't connect directly to your CNC control and do live part alignment with your Renishaw probe.