Fusion 360 - EMC Post ?

Hello

I have do last week the same things : allowing G43 with ATC, imo this is a no sense to use G43 only with manual tool change.

But you can do other way and use a remap for add the G43 with all M6 command.

At many point the original fusion 360 postpro for linuxcnc is really confusing (using G28 for retract produce G28 U. W. with lathe post pro)

Br

Muzzer: The code I posted at the top of this thread is for milling. I used the "Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC) / emc" and the "Autodesk Generic 3-axis" for the machine. It gave the above result whether the machine used an automatic tool changer or not. (Although I haven't tried the manual tool change in the tool library.) The variable "outputG43OnSeparateLine" isn't present in the LinuxCNC milling post.

In my other thread about turning I used "Autodesk Generic Mill-Turn Lathe" and "LinuxCNC turning". Due to your response I noticed that the code in that thread has no G43 commands. I found that when you post NC code, where you select the machine, these's an option to "Edit" the machine. You can select whether it has an automatic tool changer or not. However this has no effect on the NC code. The G43 commands are still missing.

I finally figured out where you pointed to to select a manual tool change in the tool library. After this change I started to get G43 commands. It does include a pause M0 though. Not optimum because my LinuxCNC is set up for manual change and also pauses for tool change. But this will be easy to change if need be.

How did you ever figure out this was in the tool library? Congratulations. I'd have never stumbled upon this. Thank you.

It is scary. Checking the manual box in the tool selection is something I'd likely forget. Another reason to set up a solid/fixed tool crib for the lathe. Or more likely, change the post to always give G43 on tool changes.

Thanks.

Hugh

Br:

One of my goals is to not spend enough time inside these Post Processors for them to really make sense. Life is too short.

Thanks.

Hugh

Luckily I'm very familiar with the Fusion milling tool library, so the Fusion turning library almost seemed familiar and I recalled seeing the "manual tool change" in both. That saved some time and frustration, I suspect.

It's worth digesting the post processor Javascript because it isn't actually terribly difficult to understand if you take it in stages. Then you can see how little modifications can be made. I'm more of a Pascal / C kind of guy and really struggle with Python but don't find Javascript too perplexing luckily.

As Alkabal says, the G28 / G53 business is rather nonsensical and the Autodesk guys clearly didn't understand how LinuxCNC interprets U, V & W moves. In my case I'm simply going to be using the G53 option but I think the G28 (intermediate move) would be preferable if you understand the intent behind it. I can't justify spending the time messing about with the PP simply to make it output a G28 X / Z instead of G28 U / W and ending up with a non std PP.

You/we can always submit a request to Autodesk for a change to the 'standard' PP for LCNC.  An explanation of the issue (i.e. incremental Z/X should not be U/W moves) plus a link to the LCNC G-code manual page would probably go a long way.

The F360 PP crew has been pretty helpful to me in the past on bug fixes and feature requests.  If you need something machine-specific for your PP, that's on you; but if the generic PP needs a change they're good about it.
 

Perhaps worth asking them to look into it but TBH, their response to Alkabal's query on the matter was pretty dismissive, despite him and Andy Pugh pointing out that they'd misunderstood how LinuxCNC interprets the U/W output. I might give it a go and see what if anything transpires.

I suspect they consider the lathe CAM to be largely complete now, so don't have any / much effort planned to support it and to be fair, the milling CAM is an order of magnitude more complex and wider ranging, with a much bigger user (paying subscriber) base. The lathe CAM still seems a bit buggy, so I'm being fairly cautious in how I use it. 

Possibly it might help if a paid subscriber made the request?  Just a thought, but I'd be happy to.

andypugh wrote:

spumco wrote:

Possibly it might help if a paid subscriber made the request?  Just a thought, but I'd be happy to.
As far as Autodesk are concerned I am a paying subscriber (with just short of a million cloud credits, they seem to have conflated my personal account with that of a major car manufacturer) so I doubt that makes any difference. 
 

Sounds like it's time for you to open up a 3rd-party CAM service and start burning through those cloud credits in the manufacturing extension.

"Cheap nesting!, Low-cost continuous 4th axis programs, get 'em while they're hot!" 

Haha - indeed. IIRC, a credit costs something like $1, so you are not far off being a millionaire. I wish you could transfer some of those to me, although I believe they only have a life of 1 month once you actually apply any of them to their damned "extensions".

I don't think they have any resources formally planned for supporting Fusion lathe CAM within Autodesk. The last "documentation" update I am aware of was actually published as a blog post....