Programming Xometry Mill Test Part using Fusion 360 - PT 4
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 лип 2024
- This video is a continuation of setting up and programming the Xometry mill test part using Fusion 360. I'll show the process for the surface milling operations and how to extend the tool off the surface of the part.
• Fusion 360 - 3D Surfac...
Have a project you need help with? Set up a project consultation or book time with me here:
www.mechanicaladvantage.com/sc...
Interest in Fusion 360 training? Check out my CAD, mill, and lathe classes here as well as hands on machining class.
www.mechanicaladvantage.com/training
Download the files from the Xometry website shown in this video
community.xometry.com/kb/arti... - Навчання та стиль
excellent stuff, as always! great tip on changing the direction of parallel and using a custom face to get it to do what you want. i'll definitely be trying that soon
Hey Kevin, any news on the drilling engraving video? I know Xometry has changed their test part, but id still like to see this one finished
Do you have any videos that explain the thread op ?
surface patching ..great tip..keeps from giving fusion t.m.i. , strugled in the past wityh ball endmill finishing.. hope you get a 4th axis someday to play with and tutor
Were you able to get the 4th axis installed yet? They really do open some possibilities when you have one installed. Thanks for stopping by and keep an eye here in 2024 for a lot more content. And don't forget to follow www.mechanicaladvantage.com/blog for updates, including why you haven't seen any videos from me in so long.
Hey Kevin I have just attempted this same part and had a similar strategy but was forewarned that Stainless can "spring/ warp" as material is removed. I machined as I normally would to see what that "spring/warp" really looked like and in fact found some dimensions and flatness that were off. Any suggestions on how to machine with this in mind to either avoid if possible or correct if needed?
Going to have to unclamp and reclamp. Set a stop.
Since we essentially have 4 identical tool paths. Would this not be a good scenario to only modify 1 of the features in the surfacing environment, then mirror and pattern the tool paths in the manufacturing environment? This would save time during the creation of those surfaces, and even more time if edits needed to be made to those surfacing features later. Just thoughts
I try to stay away from mirror. At best I will use a circular pattern.
Thanks for the video! I have a few questions: why did you use Parallel toolpath instead of Blend? IMHO it`s a bit more accurate and doesn't require making all of those additional surfaces. Am I missing something? Thank You for your answer!
A few reasons for this. Blend also can't start and end off the model, so with Blend you would still require the surface if you wanted to ensure your tool was getting all the way off the part and starting off the part.
Blend isn't a released toolpath yet. It still has a preview tag on. While I have been using blend for quite a long time and it's one of my favorite toolpaths, I wasn't sure it was the right thing to use providing it is still an unreleased toolpath.
The Blend I have is also a bit different than the Blend found in preview, and no, I can't talk about it hahah
So there are a few reasons why I chose to use parallel in this example. Thanks for the question.
Bro. Can you send me that program file? Lol 😂
I did. It's just in video format :D
Hey Kevin, another great and helpful video. Thank you! I've been trying to use the Flow toolpath without success. It appears to leave material on the top curved surface and the edges. I see @glebgro's comment about Blend and your comment that Blend isn't a released toolpath yet. I found this 2017 comment that "the replacement for Flow will be called Blend and is currently in beta" (that is one long beta test 🤣). I'm assuming they are the same or similar toolpaths and that your reply to @glebgro's comment is probably the answer to my issues with Flow. All that to say, I'll be changing over to the Parallel toolpath.
It appears that I was either incorrect or that the strategy has changed. Flow isn’t being replaced with Blend. I’m fact, there is a new Flow preview that can be enabled in preferences. They each have their place and will be important toolpaths of the future.
Thanks for the comment.