Tool Editor / Tool Table

[dubstar-04]

Update:

My current thoughts are to split the tooling in to 3 parts:

1. Primary tool holder
2. Secondary tool holder
3. Cutting tool

I have started trying to rationalise how each type of holder can be represented. None of this work is completed but I would like to show what I have for the purposes of discussion. Don't worry about the naming at the moment that can all be made simpler.

I would also appreciate users listing what tooling they use then I can make sure we have it captured.

My Tooling is as follows:

Primary Holder: BT30
Secondary Holder: Weldon / Sidelock, ER25.

Here's what I have so far:

Primary Tool Holder:
The greyed out columns are not required as that part of the tool is housed inside the spindle. i.e no chance of us crashing it.

Primary Holder Dims.png (77.93 KiB) Viewed 2428 times

Secondary Tool Holder:

Secondary Holder Dims.png (38.65 KiB) Viewed 2428 times

Tooling Drawing:

FreeCAD CAM Tooling.png (16.87 KiB) Viewed 2423 times

[chrisb]

To be honest I cannot see the benefit for Path workbench to know all these measures. To calculate paths it needs the diameter, the shape of the tool and the length, from some reference point, perhaps PTHL2+SHL+SO. What should the rest of the values be used for? Is it for crash avoidance?

[dubstar-04]

To be honest I cannot see the benefit for Path workbench to know all these measures. To calculate paths it needs the diameter, the shape of the tool and the length, from some reference point, perhaps PTHL2+SHL+SO. What should the rest of the values be used for? Is it for crash avoidance?

You are correct. We don't need all the dims shown. We could basically just use the cutting tool diameter and we could still generate paths. IMO it's worth looking at optional primary and secondary holder information if users want advanced simulations and crash avoidance.

It would be much easier for me to draw up some basic sketches of each tool but I'm hoping that going the extra mile now could help us in the future. Thoughts?

[dubstar-04]

IMO it's worth looking at optional primary and secondary holder information if users want advanced simulations and crash avoidance.

What do you think? Is it worth including the extra holder data?

[dubstar-04]

IMO it's worth looking at optional primary and secondary holder information if users want advanced simulations and crash avoidance.

What do you think? Is it worth including the extra holder data?

[sliptonic]

I'm the sinner who added all the existing tool attributes that aren't used. (in my defense, I was duplicating Heekscnc tools). So I speak from a place of experience.

So far they've only caused confusion.

My philosophy these days is that any data we ask of the user should be actively used in a feature. Gathering data for a future - feature puts a burden on the future developer who might need something different.

But I could be wrong.

[chrisb]

All data we have now is relevant for path creation now or in the future, while I cannot see the difference between paths being tooled by an SK40 or SK50 cone.

[dubstar-04]

All data we have now is relevant for path creation now or in the future, while I cannot see the difference between paths being tooled by an SK40 or SK50 cone.

As I said in the post with the data, the dimensions for the taper section are greyed out because we don't need them, however the taper number determines the size of the holder flange that is external.

If you look at any professional CAM software all this data is included and the software will determine if there are collisions between the tool, the holder and anything in the model. This is especially important when doing rest machining or multiaxis work.

Have a look here (skip to 20 mins):
https://youtu.be/3TGX4Mi7fbM

Maybe I've miss understood the intention and direction for what is trying to be achieved with the path workbench.

Thanks,

Dan

[dubstar-04]

I am at the point with the lathe integration where I can't progress much more without tooling data in FreeCAD.

As part of this I will need to make use of multiple tool tables and add lathe specific features.

I would like to continue discussion with ideas for improving the tool table and any existing issues that might need fixing first.

Thanks,

Dan

[mlampert]

I would like to continue discussion with ideas for improving the tool table and any existing issues that might need fixing first.

Quite timely - I've been playing with a new operation that requires a tool that is not describable with the current parameters. I could misuse some that are not needed but that is not a good idea.