Fusion 360 post for Bridgeport DX-32.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooperjm

I will give it a test as soon as I can. I will let you know what I find. Also I will give the cutter comp a test. Thanks for you work on this post. This has been one thing that has kept me from using 360 for CAM.

---

Yeah, the lack a viable posts kept me away for a long time also. I haven't run a lot of parts using this post but so far it has been good. I still have two more machines to sort.

I uploaded new versions of all my posts tonight. They now include a user option called writeDetails which allows you to toggle the inclusion of the file details in the top of the file. It is on by default.

Quote:

---

;(Bridgeport DX-32)
;(Fusion 360 CAM 2.0.3174)
;(Tue Aug 08 2017 00:45:24 GMT-0700 (Pacific Daylight Time))
;(forhire)
;(Part (1) v2)
;(Setup2)

---

Thanks for all the work Forhire and thanks Jim for your input as well,

The biggest problem I have found with this machine is the lack of being able find exactly how certain codes should be used. For instance, I can't replicate the G8/G9 issue on my TC-1 and there is very little mention of it's use in the manual. In my case it's as if G9 is the default power on setting. Any time I've tried a G8, it hasn't been with good results (very jerky movement).

What version is your DX32 software Jim? I have both 6.89.57 and 6.89.60...but can't really notice a difference between them.

As far as G12/G13, when I first got the machine I attempted to run standard Fanuc style G2/G3 helix's. I thought all was good as well, but at the bottom of the helix, when the cutter would transition from XYZ to XY moves, the head would just drop about .01-.015". Not healthy on cutters or parts.

I remember asking Bart at EMI about this and he said there was a software glitch that was never fixed and using G12/G13 was what I needed to do.

At that time, I finally gave up on the helical entry and just predrilled a hole (just needed to get the jobs out, no time for experiementing at that point).

With Bobcad, there was no way to post seperate code for helical....possibly with scripting, but do not know how to do that. A few months ago I gave it another shot but decided why not just have Bobcad output G12/G13 for everything (no G2/G3 at all)....it worked! So my bobcad post outputs G12 and G13 for standard XY arcs with no issue using absolute arc centers.

I will give your latest post revision a test as quick as a I can. For some reason, I'm not getting e-mailed when there are updates to this thread and didn't realize how many responses there had been since my last visit.

Thanks again!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nlh

The biggest problem I have found with this machine is the lack of being able find exactly how certain codes should be used. For instance, I can't replicate the G8/G9 issue on my TC-1 and there is very little mention of it's use in the manual. In my case it's as if G9 is the default power on setting. Any time I've tried a G8, it hasn't been with good results (very jerky movement).

---

G9 is the default. I didn't see any difference on my TC3 either. Doesn't the TC22 use different axis drivers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nlh

As far as G12/G13, when I first got the machine I attempted to run standard Fanuc style G2/G3 helix's. I thought all was good as well, but at the bottom of the helix, when the cutter would transition from XYZ to XY moves, the head would just drop about .01-.015". Not healthy on cutters or parts.

I remember asking Bart at EMI about this and he said there was a software glitch that was never fixed and using G12/G13 was what I needed to do.

---

Interesting. I'll have to test it more carefully. The code can be easily changed on line 958-959.

Quote:

---

// gMotionModal.format((isHelical() ? 10 : 0) + (clockwise ? 2 : 3)), // Use G12/G13
gMotionModal.format(clockwise ? 2 : 3),

---

jgwentworth96 in another thread mentioned the canned drilling and tapping cycles are not retracting properly. Took a quick look at the tapping and sure enough...

Z0.2
M29
G84 X0. Y0. Z0.5 F15.63
M28
G80

Looking at the manual it is clear the Z value must include the clearance plus the thread depth. So taking jgwentworth96 suggestion I changed the post as getCommonCycle(x, y, cycle.depth + cycle.retract).

Z0.2
M29
G84 X0. Y0. Z0.7 F15.63
M28
G80

I compared the corrected post to my Visualmill post and it's correct. I don't use Fusion 360 very much at work so I didn't catch this one. ;)

I'll dig though the drilling ops... I suspect a similar issues.

I changed the drilling operations to fully retract. As suspected they all were wrong.

I did not see any ability for chip break tapping. According to the manual it doesn't appear to be supported.

I won't have a chance to fully test for a few days so look at your posted code and make sure it looks correct. ;)

http://home.lewiscounty.com/~forhire...eport_dx32.cps

Thanks for the update. I will test it out in the next few days.

Rod emailed me about an issue related to G3 I and J missing at the end of some circes. Turns out you have to force the value.

The post has been updated:
9462a0573575ede9d1337a7d8cfcc192 bridgeport_dx32.cps 32kB January 09 2018 10:46:23.
http://home.lewiscounty.com/~forhire...eport_dx32.cps

The solution was provided by Autodesk here:
https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-p...g/td-p/7665881

Original code:
// circular output
var iOutput = createVariable({prefix:"I"}, xyzFormat);
var jOutput = createVariable({prefix:"J"}, xyzFormat);
var kOutput = createVariable({prefix:"K"}, xyzFormat);

Should be this:
// circular output
var iOutput = createVariable({prefix:"I", force:true}, xyzFormat);
var jOutput = createVariable({prefix:"J", force:true}, xyzFormat);
var kOutput = createVariable({prefix:"K", force:true}, xyzFormat);

Forhire

Is it possible to make tapping out like this also? Could we choose. I just prefer using F=pitch. Currently the post outputs F=IPM. So if you change RPM you also have to change feed rate.

Z.1
M29G95
G84X0.Y-.5Z.74F.0714
Y-1.75
M28G94
G80G0Z.1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooperjm

Forhire

Is it possible to make tapping out like this also? Could we choose. I just prefer using F=pitch. Currently the post outputs F=IPM. So if you change RPM you also have to change feed rate.

Z.1
M29G95
G84X0.Y-.5Z.74F.0714
Y-1.75
M28G94
G80G0Z.1

---

This has been on my todo list for a while. I too prefer pitch feed as my other machines are all Fanuc. I just uploaded a new post file with feed=pitch as default. It can be toggled using usePitchForTapping. http://home.lewiscounty.com/~forhire...eport_dx32.cps

usePitchForTapping: true, // G95 = Feed per spindle revolution (pitch) mode (FANUC mode).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by forhire

This has been on my todo list for a while. I too prefer pitch feed as my other machines are all Fanuc. I just uploaded a new post file with feed=pitch as default. It can be toggled using usePitchForTapping. http://home.lewiscounty.com/~forhire...eport_dx32.cps

usePitchForTapping: true, // G95 = Feed per spindle revolution (pitch) mode (FANUC mode).

---

You are awesome. Thank you

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Another user recommended changing the drill retraction code. After messing with the default code it became clear it worked if you clearly defined a depth but if you used hole bottom it wouldn't work. I updated all the drill/tapping/reaming operations.

This is the updated code.
getCommonCycle(x, y, (cycle.bottom*-1+cycle.clearance))

Slotting Issue
This is on the screen.

Attachment 385708

This is the code.

G8
G70
N1 ;(Slot2)
M9
T9 M6
S6500 M3
G54
M8
G17
G0 X2.4606 Y0.
Z0.625
Z-0.4693
G9
G1 Z-0.5693 F40.
X1.4764 Z-0.6013 F45.
Z-0.6333
Z-0.6653
Z-0.6974
Z-0.7294
Z-0.7614
Z-0.7934
G8
G0 X2.4606 Z0.625
M9
M5
G90
M22


It is just diving straight down with out the lateral move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooperjm

Slotting Issue
It is just diving straight down with out the lateral move.

---

Well isn't that nasty. I've been in communication with Bob at Autodesk and they have been following this thread in preparation of a new generic DX-32 post. He sent me the latest post to try. It slots properly and has all of the updates. I looked at my version and couldn't quickly identify the slotting issue. Please test Bob's latest and let me know how it goes. It should also be noted that it appears to be derived from a much more modern source.

http://home.lewiscounty.com/~forhire...eport_dx32.cps

forhire I don't know if you have seen this it makes editing a post way easier https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/hsm-p...e/td-p/7638059

Autodesk has released the official Bridgeport-DX-32 generic post processor that is based off the changes made in this thread. After some review it appears to be based off a more modern code base. The slotting works. They also modernized the drilling operations. Moving forward I will be tweaking this version as needed. http://cam.autodesk.com/posts/downlo...dgeport%20dx32

I guess I need to start using the new one then. I am having issues with drilling depths on the other one.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooperjm

I guess I need to start using the new one then. I am having issues with drilling depths on the other one.

---

The drill depth issue appears to be related to how hole depths are being selected in Fusion 360 CAM. The new version has a re-written depth routine. If it also is posting incorrectly please upload your model (*.F3D) and I'll take a look.

When I was messing around with the routine I did have a version that was broken if you use hole bottom as your depth. The deprecated version is the last version I modified and should work either way. Check the MD5SUM on your version. As you can see the Autodesk version is a bit larger.
http://home.lewiscounty.com/~forhire/posts/
9ac5be0533a9ba9b71f4c817e86263e1 bridgeport_dx32.cps 40kB February 18 2018 09:04:56.
17505e5ff55c6d332ff0bd5de7a61d3f deprecated_bridgeport_dx32.cps 34kB January 21 2018 21:00:27.

It seems that the Hole Depths are working. I will start using the new post from here forward. Hopefully there are not any surprises.

Thanks for the work you have put into this post Forhire and the others that gave you feedback to make it better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cooperjm

It seems that the Hole Depths are working. I will start using the new post from here forward. Hopefully there are not any surprises.

Thanks for the work you have put into this post Forhire and the others that gave you feedback to make it better.

---

Thanks for the quick feedback. Let me know if this new very give you any issues. ;)

New post brings Z down first then XY. Not cool

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk