|
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
|
That sounds excellent.? Yes a new thread would be great!? Would love to hear how you got it all to run and the “rules” we will have to follow to achieve success!
?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
On Behalf Of joeaverage via groups.io
Sent: April 8, 2025 8:49 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [pcbgcode] #Fusion#EAGLE Using Fusion Contour to make a PCB
?
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
|
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 ? ?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of joeaverage via groups.io
Sent: Wednesday, 9 April 2025 11:49 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [pcbgcode] #Fusion#EAGLE Using Fusion Contour to make a PCB? 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
|
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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
?
?
?
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
|
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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
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
?
?
?
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
|
The pics themselves are not attached in my mail, but links are
provided that when clicked show the pic in the browser.?
On 4/9/2025 4:46 PM, joeaverage via
groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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
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
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
?
?
?
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
|
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
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
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
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
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
?
?
?
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
|
Hi,
kool. I was thinking the effort I'd made to generate the pics and annotate them may have been wasted.
Craig.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The pics themselves are not attached in my mail, but links are provided that when clicked show the pic in the browser.?
On 4/9/2025 4:46 PM, joeaverage via groups.io wrote:
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
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
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
?
?
?
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
|
Hi guys,?
to carry on the process, as we now have a Stock model. Generate a Contour operation. Select the tool you require. I have now a new tool library that has all the tools I use for PCB's all with their correct speeds, feeds etc just for PCB's. Either way you have
to select a tool, whether it be from a specific library or from Fusions built-in libraries. On the Geometry Tab select Silhouette toolpath and apply the settings. Note this should include all the traces on that level, and its important that you use Body1 only
to make that selection.
The following pics are of the various settings that I've made on my installation, and have found them to be useful. The Heights tab deserves explanation. the critical setting is to top most part of the board, ie the top surface of the copper. The Bottom height
I select the upper surface of the core but add an additional 25um (0.025mm) cut depth as an offset. I find this extra undercut is enough to produce a well isolated board. Depending on how 'flat' your board is you may need more or less, 25um suits my machine
and Autoleveler utility.
On the passes tab I have set a stepover over 0.09mm, or 50% of the diameter of the tool tip, again I find this reliable, but may wish to experiment for your best combination. Seth commended that the stepover be replicated as shown, why I don't know, I just
followed along. I have set 10 Roughing passes for an isolation of 1mm. If you were doing a high voltage board you'd need to increase that.
On the links tab set a Ramp Lead-in, this is necessary at Seth's advice to avoid a bug within Fusions toolpath generation algorithm.
Once all settings are made click OK and let Fusion calculate the toolpath. Inspect and/or simulate to determine that the toolpath is good. If so, consider saving the settings you have made as a template that can be used on your next boards. Saves a lot of time
and errors as there are a lot of small but significant settings to be made.
Craig
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hi,
kool. I was thinking the effort I'd made to generate the pics and annotate them may have been wasted.
Craig.
The pics themselves are not attached in my mail, but links are provided that when clicked show the pic in the browser.?
On 4/9/2025 4:46 PM, joeaverage via groups.io wrote:
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
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
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
?
?
?
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
?
|
Hi,
starting to get some good results.
My smallest feature size is 0.2mm, but everything has to go absolutely right in order to get a usable board. As a consequence I try to use traces
no smaller than 0.3mm to 0.4mm, and if I have the room then 0.6mm.
This board has signal traces of 0.4mm, and the isolation between traces is 0.25mm and up. The IC is VSO56 with 0.8mm pitch, about as fine a
pitch as I can solder and 0.3mm spacing between pads.
With some practice I'm getting the time taken to generate tool paths down to five to ten minutes. You do have a number of things to remember,
but with a good template its is pretty smooth. I have a post especially for the isolation routing tool path that works seamlessly with Autoleveller.
Craig
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Hi guys,?
to carry on the process, as we now have a Stock model. Generate a Contour operation. Select the tool you require. I have now a new tool library that has all the tools I use for PCB's all with their correct speeds, feeds etc just for PCB's. Either way you have
to select a tool, whether it be from a specific library or from Fusions built-in libraries. On the Geometry Tab select Silhouette toolpath and apply the settings. Note this should include all the traces on that level, and its important that you use Body1 only
to make that selection.
The following pics are of the various settings that I've made on my installation, and have found them to be useful. The Heights tab deserves explanation. the critical setting is to top most part of the board, ie the top surface of the copper. The Bottom height
I select the upper surface of the core but add an additional 25um (0.025mm) cut depth as an offset. I find this extra undercut is enough to produce a well isolated board. Depending on how 'flat' your board is you may need more or less, 25um suits my machine
and Autoleveler utility.
On the passes tab I have set a stepover over 0.09mm, or 50% of the diameter of the tool tip, again I find this reliable, but may wish to experiment for your best combination. Seth commended that the stepover be replicated as shown, why I don't know, I just
followed along. I have set 10 Roughing passes for an isolation of 1mm. If you were doing a high voltage board you'd need to increase that.
On the links tab set a Ramp Lead-in, this is necessary at Seth's advice to avoid a bug within Fusions toolpath generation algorithm.
Once all settings are made click OK and let Fusion calculate the toolpath. Inspect and/or simulate to determine that the toolpath is good. If so, consider saving the settings you have made as a template that can be used on your next boards. Saves a lot of time
and errors as there are a lot of small but significant settings to be made.
Craig
Hi,
kool. I was thinking the effort I'd made to generate the pics and annotate them may have been wasted.
Craig.
The pics themselves are not attached in my mail, but links are provided that when clicked show the pic in the browser.?
On 4/9/2025 4:46 PM, joeaverage via groups.io wrote:
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
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
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
?
?
?
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
?
|
Glad you all are finding some workarounds!
Regards, JJ
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Apr 19, 2025, at 8:53?PM, joeaverage via groups.io <joe.average@...> wrote:
?
Hi,
starting to get some good results.
My smallest feature size is 0.2mm, but everything has to go absolutely right in order to get a usable board. As a consequence I try to use traces
no smaller than 0.3mm to 0.4mm, and if I have the room then 0.6mm.
This board has signal traces of 0.4mm, and the isolation between traces is 0.25mm and up. The IC is VSO56 with 0.8mm pitch, about as fine a
pitch as I can solder and 0.3mm spacing between pads.
With some practice I'm getting the time taken to generate tool paths down to five to ten minutes. You do have a number of things to remember,
but with a good template its is pretty smooth. I have a post especially for the isolation routing tool path that works seamlessly with Autoleveller.
Craig
Hi guys,?
to carry on the process, as we now have a Stock model. Generate a Contour operation. Select the tool you require. I have now a new tool library that has all the tools I use for PCB's all with their correct speeds, feeds etc just for PCB's. Either way you have
to select a tool, whether it be from a specific library or from Fusions built-in libraries. On the Geometry Tab select Silhouette toolpath and apply the settings. Note this should include all the traces on that level, and its important that you use Body1 only
to make that selection.
The following pics are of the various settings that I've made on my installation, and have found them to be useful. The Heights tab deserves explanation. the critical setting is to top most part of the board, ie the top surface of the copper. The Bottom height
I select the upper surface of the core but add an additional 25um (0.025mm) cut depth as an offset. I find this extra undercut is enough to produce a well isolated board. Depending on how 'flat' your board is you may need more or less, 25um suits my machine
and Autoleveler utility.
On the passes tab I have set a stepover over 0.09mm, or 50% of the diameter of the tool tip, again I find this reliable, but may wish to experiment for your best combination. Seth commended that the stepover be replicated as shown, why I don't know, I just
followed along. I have set 10 Roughing passes for an isolation of 1mm. If you were doing a high voltage board you'd need to increase that.
On the links tab set a Ramp Lead-in, this is necessary at Seth's advice to avoid a bug within Fusions toolpath generation algorithm.
Once all settings are made click OK and let Fusion calculate the toolpath. Inspect and/or simulate to determine that the toolpath is good. If so, consider saving the settings you have made as a template that can be used on your next boards. Saves a lot of time
and errors as there are a lot of small but significant settings to be made.
Craig
Hi,
kool. I was thinking the effort I'd made to generate the pics and annotate them may have been wasted.
Craig.
The pics themselves are not attached in my mail, but links are provided that when clicked show the pic in the browser.?
On 4/9/2025 4:46 PM, joeaverage via groups.io wrote:
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
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
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
?
?
?
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
?
<NewBoard.jpg>
|
John Johnson