Fusion 360 - EMC Post ?

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.

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.