Keyboard Shortcuts
Likes
Search
Re: #Fusion#EAGLE Using Fusion Contour to make a PCB
¿ªÔÆÌåÓý
Hi,
I had very good help from Seth? Madore at Autodesk, he is a Fusion? Manufacture expert. He made a short video and what I have learned is based on what he started. I can't get the video to attach but maybe you can read the thread (on Autodesk's Fusion Electronics
Forum):
I have been experimenting with good settings to apply in the form of templates. I have three now, one for the top and bottom etch toolpath, another template for drilling the board and yet another template for milling any features and the periphery. I have also
been experimenting with certain (small scale) edits to the Fusion Mach4 post. The result is that I can now with considerable ease generate good toolpaths with all the correct settings, that work seamlessly with my machine and Autoleveller in a very timely
manner.
It may be that I'll have to post all the pics I've made which detail the process into some online repository, as it seems that I cannot get them to attach here. The settings in the templates and the Post edits deserve better explanation.
I had been very sceptical that Fusion WITHOUT PCB-GCode would ever do as good a job, but I now have to reconsider that stance.
One thing that may astound you is the tool path order. With PCB-Gcode the first pass would be one half the tool width away from the trace, the second path would be one stepover away from the first pass etc. Thus the trace would be isolated from the inside?
towards the outside. With Fusion Contour, which uses Roughing passes, the cut starts from the outside and works inward. It is very disconcerting to see, but it does work, and is in fact about 1/3 to ? as fast again as PCB-GCode. Note also that according to
Seth there is a small bug in Fusion that can cause certain parts of the toolpath to be dropped. The work around is to use a Ramp entry. This too will look very strange if you are used to PCB-GCode. You'd swear that the machine is out of whack and the tool
will never actually cut the copper, but with some patience the tool DOES descend enough to cut the copper. Again it looks very strange, but it does work. I have an on-going enquiry with Seth about the operation of the Ramp function....so this part of the story
is still developing.
Craig
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of joeaverage via groups.io <joe.average@...>
Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2025 8:46 am To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [pcbgcode] #Fusion#EAGLE Using Fusion Contour to make a PCB ?
Hi guys,
can you tell me whether you actually got the pics I attached to this post? I get a copy of the post, but no pics, and really its the pics that detail the process, without them this thread is likely not very useful.
Craig
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of joeaverage via groups.io <joe.average@...>
Sent: Thursday, 10 April 2025 8:40 am To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [pcbgcode] #Fusion#EAGLE Using Fusion Contour to make a PCB ?
Hi,
I'll start with a board of my own, a 2D PCB designed in Fusion, but is nearly identical to EAGLE. To use Fusion Contour toolpath function you need a 3D model, and thus the button that produces it. the second pic is that 3D model with all the layers visible.
In order to machine the traces and the board we want visibility of the board core, and the top and bottom traces only....so turn of the visibility to those other layers.
Now open the Manufacture workspace of Fusion. We need to generate a stock model, and this is perhaps the most critical and confusing part of the process. The stock model should include the top and bottom traces and the board core. But note that the traces (top
and bottom) are actually broken into three bodies, and this is different to EAGLE and is the reason that PCB-Gcode does not work. Thus the top traces are formed of the combination of Body1, Body2 and Body3. Exactly why Autodesk did this is still a mystery
to me, but it is what it is. For our purposes we need Body1 ONLY of both top and bottom traces, and the core body.
For most standard 1 oz.sq.yd boards the copper layer is 35um thick or 0.035mm. The total stock model is therefore 1.5mm (board core) + 0.035mm (top traces) + 0.35mm (bottom traces)=1.57mm. Use the Setup panel and dialogues to set the origin position, the origin
orientation, the Setup name etc as per normal with a Manufacture setup.?
If you've made it this far you have largely 'broken its back'.
Craig
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of irobbo2 via groups.io <irobbo2@...>
Sent: Wednesday, 9 April 2025 3:11 pm To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [pcbgcode] #Fusion#EAGLE Using Fusion Contour to make a PCB ?
Hi Craig ? Likewise, I¡¯m now using Fusion, ?exporting back to Eagle and running PCB-Gcode, I use Chilipeppr auto leveler though. I did look briefly at producing Gcode via Fusion, but I think my eyes glazed over at the complicated process and put that thought aside for a bit. ? I would be interested in understanding the process you have put together to produce Gcode via Fusion. I doubt Autodesk will change Fusion to accommodate PCB-Gcode, and I vaguely remember that the possibility of any changes to PCB-Gcode to work with Fusion was complicated and unlikely. ? Cheers Ian ? ? From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of joeaverage via groups.io ? Hi, Autodesk have declared that they are ceasing support for EAGLE next year. I have not used EAGLE per se for about three years, I use instead Fusion Electronics which is Autodesk's re-imagined version of EAGLE. There have been a number of changes, and one in particular that prevents PCB-Gcode from working with a Fusion board. For three years I've been exporting a Fusion board to EAGLE just I could use PCB-Gcode.? ? There is a specific reason that PCB-Gcode does not work in Fusion, and I presume interested parties could re-write PCB-Gcode to suit the new 'Fusion' environment, but I have not bothered. ? Autodesk have always claimed that using Fusion CAM functions, 2D Contour in particular, that you could generate Gcode without the use of a ULP. Until now I've never had any luck trying to do so. The last few days however I've rolled up my sleeves and with the (grateful) assistance of Jorge and Seth at Autodesk I've made some good progress. ? I'm now able to generate good Gcode, the match of PCB-Gcode. Generating it is an involved process, but now I have a template that automates many of the settings and that has vastly improved the rate at which I can produce code. The code generation process is still longer, say 15 to 20 minutes per two sided board, however I have found that the speed and efficiency of Fusion Contour is such that the isolation tool path that results is approximately 50% better in run-time than the same PCB-Gcode output.? ? Additionally I use Autoleveller to maintain exact cutting depth. There are a few quirks about Autoleveller that must be respected in order to get good Gcode. Those quirks are accommodated by several edits to the Fusion Mach4 post. In particular the format of the x,y,z coordinates must comply in order for Autoleveller to work.....but it does, in fact better than before. I used to have to run the drill code through a script to get Mach4 compliant code, now I don't. Fusion Contour/Fusion Mach4post/Autoleveller generates perfect Mach4 code, no hand edits, no running through a script....so yes when I say better than before I actually mean it. ? I make somewhere between 200 and 500 boards a year, with perhaps 100 to maybe 200 being repeats of boards I've made before but the remainder are all one off designs. Having a productive PCB design tool and a reliable and fast PCB design to PCB tool is critical to my work.? For many years I have relied on PCB-Gcode and Autoleveller to secure the later. For the first time I think I can say I have found a solution that is at least a match for PCB-Gcode but may in fact prove better ......... Fusion Contour/Fusion Mach4 post/Autoleveller. ? If anyone is interested we should start a thread covering this development. ? Craig ? |