Re: #Fusion#EAGLE Using Fusion Contour to make a PCB
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
?
|
Re: #Fusion#EAGLE Using Fusion Contour to make a PCB
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
|
Re: #Fusion#EAGLE Using Fusion Contour to make a PCB
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
|
Re: #Fusion#EAGLE Using Fusion Contour to make a PCB
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
|
Re: #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
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
|
Re: #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
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
|
Re: #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 ? ?
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
|
Re: #Fusion#EAGLE Using Fusion Contour to make a PCB
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
|
#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
|
No thank you, thank you very much again, I do not need to pay for the software I use software that I have designed for myself, thank you very much, I am a software developer myself.
Hi,
I too was very much against the subscription idea, but my dislike has moderated.
In particular Fusion Basic costs me $800NZD/year.
When I compare it to like software with the same features, eg RhinoCAM etc, I find that in those other software I need an entry Pro Level
product costing something like $200USD to $2500USD. ($3330NZD to $4160NZD). Whether you choose to get updates which cost another $200USD to $300USD, is a?
matter of choice.
From a straight out affordability perspective, paying a modest annual subscription is easier for me than a much steeper one off purchase.
The issue gets worse when you consider four and five axis. I pay $2400NZD/year for Fusion machining Extensions that gets you simultaneous four and five axis,
collision avoidance and tool path editing. If you go to buy the same thing from RhinoCAM? Premium is $8000USD ($13,330NZD) plus annual fees if you wish it.
Quite frankly I think Fusion Machining Extensions is better, firstly I don't have to try and find that huge initial purchase and second because it always stays
up to date. I could not tolerate paying $13330NZD......and then have it slowly go out of date!
You may now see why my distaste for a subscription has moderated, simply because it makes good sense to me, and in a means and manner that I can afford.
I would guess that Autodesk have thought long and hard about the pricing of their products. It seem to me they have chosen to price for 'value for money' and
?thereby secure long term customers. Cant really fault them for that.
Craig
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I was happy about "buying" a release, and then paying for the next
version update.
I am not happy about the subscription model.
Since I am able enough to do what I'd like to do with version 7.7, I see
no need to have a version that I have to rent.? It doesn't stop me from
wishing changes to 7.7 but that will not be.
Pay once is one thing, pay continually is another.
Cloud is not an option.
Harvey
On 1/12/2025 7:57 PM, joeaverage via groups.io wrote:
> Hi,
>
>???? OK, I'm of the opinion that almost everything Autodesk has done is
>???? either drastically limited or paid.
>
> I presume what you are saying is you do not want to pay anything? If
> that is the case then the offering by
> Autodesk is indeed very limited, probably less that you would be
> satisfied with.
>
> ?If you pay then the Autodesk offering is naturally very much better.
> Then the question becomes is the offering worth the money paid?.
> Having a Fusion subscription my self
> I am of the opinion that 'yes the software is indeed worth what I pay
> for it'
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* [email protected] < [email protected]> on behalf of Harvey
> White <madyn@...>
> *Sent:*?Monday, 13 January 2025 1:37 pm
> *To:* [email protected] < [email protected]>
> *Subject:*?Re: [pcbgcode] Eagle 9.6.2 #eagle #etch #gcode #2-layer
> OK, I'm of the opinion that almost everything Autodesk has done is
> either drastically limited or paid.
>
> I've got the standard version of Eagle, 7.7.? That was purchased on a
> hobby license, so I cannot easily share designs because of the
> prohibition on "selling" the design.
>
>
> You can write a C++ program that reads the .brd file, and creates a
> board from a library of parts (that you'd need to provide) modeled in
> OpenSCAD.? There's also a program in OpenSCAD that has a library of
> parts, but it turns out to be easier (for me) to model everything from
> scratch and use my own models.
>
>
> Not related so much to pcbgcode, but I find it a useful addition.
>
> Harvey
>
>
> On 1/12/2025 2:45 PM, joeaverage via groups.io wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >???? Autodesk -? in their wisdom - seem set to kill off the current
> >???? versions of Eagle, including the free version used by many
> >???? hobbyists - myself included. The version running under Fusion is
> >???? apparently not ccompatible with PCB-Gcode as well as forcing use
> >???? of ghastly Fusion 360.? Gone is the user friendliness of Eagle to
> >???? be replaced, IMHO, by a user hostile revamp focussed more on
> >???? mechanical engineering than on the electrical/electronic aspects
> >???? of the task!!
> >
> > Autodesk do seem to be prepared to drop EACLE, but Fusion does have
> > EAGLE built-in. I've Used EAGLE for years, and then transitioned to
> > Fusion, and unlike you I find the Fusion is very
> > good. It does all the things that EAGLE did. The one thing that has
> > changed is that the PCB-Gcode ULP is indeed broken, and while I've
> > pestered Autodesk to repair it they have
> > declined. Thus I do all my design work in Fusion, then export the PCB
> > file to EAGLE to use PCB-Gcode, an extra step to be sure but not that
> > bad either.
> >
> > The real advantage of Fusion is the CAD functionality, for which EAGLE
> > is abysmal. You can design your device in Fusion with all the modern
> > CAD tools you'd expect. Then extract
> > the outline including any holes or other placement critical features
> > and use that to design your board. Vastly better than EAGLE alone.
> >
> > In addition to CAD tools Fusion has a good CAM functionality, an FEA
> > module, thermal modelling, generative design, a SPICE modeler.? I
> > personally use CAD, CAM, Fusion Electronics
> > (essentially a re-skinned version of EAGLE) and FEA. I also buy Fusion
> > Machining Extensions that gives me genuine simultaneous four and five
> > axis tool paths.
> >
> > My ONLY complaint about Fusion is that the 'pour' function has been
> > altered, and that is what has broken PCB-Gcode.
> >
> > Craig
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* [email protected] < [email protected]> on behalf of
> > peterg1000 via groups.io <petergharrison@...>
> > *Sent:*?Monday, 13 January 2025 1:25 am
> > *To:* [email protected] < [email protected]>
> > *Subject:*?[pcbgcode] Eagle 9.6.2 #eagle #etch #gcode #2-layer
> > Autodesk -? in their wisdom - seem set to kill off the current
> > versions of Eagle, including the free version used by many hobbyists -
> > myself included. The version running under Fusion is apparently not
> > ccompatible with PCB-Gcode as well as forcing use of ghastly Fusion
> > 360.? Gone is the user friendliness of Eagle to be replaced, IMHO, by
> > a user hostile revamp focussed more on mechanical engineering than on
> > the electrical/electronic aspects of the task!!
> > It is possible to legally download Eagle 7.7.0, and this already has
> > most of the bells and whistles of Eagle 9.6.2 with the exception of
> > the autorouter and its associated tools.? The V7 track manipulation
> > facilities are very basic compared to V9, which makes fine tuning of
> > the layout very tedious.
> > As a hobbyist community, it would surely be advantageous to lobby
> > Autodesk to leave the free version as is, but without the requirement
> > to log in every 2 weeks.? No possible financial loss or gain for
> > Autodesk but a huge gain for hobbyists.
> > My personal PCB toolchain is Eagle 9.6.2 - PCB-Gcode - UCCNC(UC100) -
> > Stepcraft420/2.?? No file manipulation needed between Eagle layout and
> > the finished circuit board.
> > Any thoughts on this????
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
I use OnShape, ommercial which is free for non-commercial use and the files are accessible to all other users.? To make them private is $1.400/year.? I don't care of my projects are public. It runs in the cloud and I've been using it for five years IIRC.? Inthat time there has only beeon one outage on their end which was about an hour on a Sunday afternoon.? There are also outages at my end.? we have cable internet and a Verizon jetpack and I'ver had to switch when the cable gets bad.? I can see more than 40 systems on wifi, some of which are stronger than my usually -40db signal strength.? we're going overseas for a month and I'll get into this when we get home.
?
I doubt that autodesk will let us have the last Eagle.? They will see it as loss of sales.? too bad.
?
I have a 1993 incarnation of Pro/Engineer (Release 12) which runs on a 1993 Sparcstaion 10 which still works.? It can generate STL files as well as produce 3 axis g-code which works well for my projects.? Yes it's old, but it also has printed manuals.
?
But withal, I have a subscription to Creo with the machining add-on (3 axis) .? It costs, but it's worth it, mostly because the latest import fiunction can deal with solid modeling formats that didn;t exist in 1993.
?
Yes, it's hobby but it's woth it to me.
?
And I did use auto-routing in Eagle. It never produced a final layout, but usually only took a little twicthing - all logic circuits for me so no rf issues.
?
I do wonder if AutoDesk can be convinced to support the pour funcion if that's all we need to continue using wonderful pcbgcode.
?
john ferguson, St Petersburg, fl
|
Thank you José!
Enjoy your retirement!
Regards,
JJ
|
Dear J.J.
Thanks to provid me Pcbgcode to do my dream after drawing circuits by hand and later use of photo sensitive boards. It was only possible that you did your software and offer it to the world. Saddly this days are a very diferente world where money never its enought and there are no red lines.
So before to unsubscribe my name I want salut you and the good guys that help me too.
I will arrive to 75 years on a few days ahead and need to rest and apreciate nature often.
I wish you my best regards dear John.
?
|
We all have subscriptions that we gladly, or sometimes grudgingly, pay. Some examples being internet, cable tv, electricity, water, sewer.
And it should be said that the software we think we own, we do not really own.
It’s good AutoDesk still offers a free personal version. I don’t know how hamstrung it is though. And the pricing for the pro versions sounds very reasonable if you’re earning money with them.
I know I won’t change any minds, and I’m not out to, I’m just chiming in.
Regards,
JJ
|
Hi,
I too was very much against the subscription idea, but my dislike has moderated.
In particular Fusion Basic costs me $800NZD/year.
When I compare it to like software with the same features, eg RhinoCAM etc, I find that in those other software I need an entry Pro Level
product costing something like $200USD to $2500USD. ($3330NZD to $4160NZD). Whether you choose to get updates which cost another $200USD to $300USD, is a?
matter of choice.
From a straight out affordability perspective, paying a modest annual subscription is easier for me than a much steeper one off purchase.
The issue gets worse when you consider four and five axis. I pay $2400NZD/year for Fusion machining Extensions that gets you simultaneous four and five axis,
collision avoidance and tool path editing. If you go to buy the same thing from RhinoCAM? Premium is $8000USD ($13,330NZD) plus annual fees if you wish it.
Quite frankly I think Fusion Machining Extensions is better, firstly I don't have to try and find that huge initial purchase and second because it always stays
up to date. I could not tolerate paying $13330NZD......and then have it slowly go out of date!
You may now see why my distaste for a subscription has moderated, simply because it makes good sense to me, and in a means and manner that I can afford.
I would guess that Autodesk have thought long and hard about the pricing of their products. It seem to me they have chosen to price for 'value for money' and
?thereby secure long term customers. Cant really fault them for that.
Craig
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
I was happy about "buying" a release, and then paying for the next
version update.
I am not happy about the subscription model.
Since I am able enough to do what I'd like to do with version 7.7, I see
no need to have a version that I have to rent.? It doesn't stop me from
wishing changes to 7.7 but that will not be.
Pay once is one thing, pay continually is another.
Cloud is not an option.
Harvey
On 1/12/2025 7:57 PM, joeaverage via groups.io wrote:
> Hi,
>
>???? OK, I'm of the opinion that almost everything Autodesk has done is
>???? either drastically limited or paid.
>
> I presume what you are saying is you do not want to pay anything? If
> that is the case then the offering by
> Autodesk is indeed very limited, probably less that you would be
> satisfied with.
>
> ?If you pay then the Autodesk offering is naturally very much better.
> Then the question becomes is the offering worth the money paid?.
> Having a Fusion subscription my self
> I am of the opinion that 'yes the software is indeed worth what I pay
> for it'
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* [email protected] < [email protected]> on behalf of Harvey
> White <madyn@...>
> *Sent:*?Monday, 13 January 2025 1:37 pm
> *To:* [email protected] < [email protected]>
> *Subject:*?Re: [pcbgcode] Eagle 9.6.2 #eagle #etch #gcode #2-layer
> OK, I'm of the opinion that almost everything Autodesk has done is
> either drastically limited or paid.
>
> I've got the standard version of Eagle, 7.7.? That was purchased on a
> hobby license, so I cannot easily share designs because of the
> prohibition on "selling" the design.
>
>
> You can write a C++ program that reads the .brd file, and creates a
> board from a library of parts (that you'd need to provide) modeled in
> OpenSCAD.? There's also a program in OpenSCAD that has a library of
> parts, but it turns out to be easier (for me) to model everything from
> scratch and use my own models.
>
>
> Not related so much to pcbgcode, but I find it a useful addition.
>
> Harvey
>
>
> On 1/12/2025 2:45 PM, joeaverage via groups.io wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >???? Autodesk -? in their wisdom - seem set to kill off the current
> >???? versions of Eagle, including the free version used by many
> >???? hobbyists - myself included. The version running under Fusion is
> >???? apparently not ccompatible with PCB-Gcode as well as forcing use
> >???? of ghastly Fusion 360.? Gone is the user friendliness of Eagle to
> >???? be replaced, IMHO, by a user hostile revamp focussed more on
> >???? mechanical engineering than on the electrical/electronic aspects
> >???? of the task!!
> >
> > Autodesk do seem to be prepared to drop EACLE, but Fusion does have
> > EAGLE built-in. I've Used EAGLE for years, and then transitioned to
> > Fusion, and unlike you I find the Fusion is very
> > good. It does all the things that EAGLE did. The one thing that has
> > changed is that the PCB-Gcode ULP is indeed broken, and while I've
> > pestered Autodesk to repair it they have
> > declined. Thus I do all my design work in Fusion, then export the PCB
> > file to EAGLE to use PCB-Gcode, an extra step to be sure but not that
> > bad either.
> >
> > The real advantage of Fusion is the CAD functionality, for which EAGLE
> > is abysmal. You can design your device in Fusion with all the modern
> > CAD tools you'd expect. Then extract
> > the outline including any holes or other placement critical features
> > and use that to design your board. Vastly better than EAGLE alone.
> >
> > In addition to CAD tools Fusion has a good CAM functionality, an FEA
> > module, thermal modelling, generative design, a SPICE modeler.? I
> > personally use CAD, CAM, Fusion Electronics
> > (essentially a re-skinned version of EAGLE) and FEA. I also buy Fusion
> > Machining Extensions that gives me genuine simultaneous four and five
> > axis tool paths.
> >
> > My ONLY complaint about Fusion is that the 'pour' function has been
> > altered, and that is what has broken PCB-Gcode.
> >
> > Craig
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *From:* [email protected] < [email protected]> on behalf of
> > peterg1000 via groups.io <petergharrison@...>
> > *Sent:*?Monday, 13 January 2025 1:25 am
> > *To:* [email protected] < [email protected]>
> > *Subject:*?[pcbgcode] Eagle 9.6.2 #eagle #etch #gcode #2-layer
> > Autodesk -? in their wisdom - seem set to kill off the current
> > versions of Eagle, including the free version used by many hobbyists -
> > myself included. The version running under Fusion is apparently not
> > ccompatible with PCB-Gcode as well as forcing use of ghastly Fusion
> > 360.? Gone is the user friendliness of Eagle to be replaced, IMHO, by
> > a user hostile revamp focussed more on mechanical engineering than on
> > the electrical/electronic aspects of the task!!
> > It is possible to legally download Eagle 7.7.0, and this already has
> > most of the bells and whistles of Eagle 9.6.2 with the exception of
> > the autorouter and its associated tools.? The V7 track manipulation
> > facilities are very basic compared to V9, which makes fine tuning of
> > the layout very tedious.
> > As a hobbyist community, it would surely be advantageous to lobby
> > Autodesk to leave the free version as is, but without the requirement
> > to log in every 2 weeks.? No possible financial loss or gain for
> > Autodesk but a huge gain for hobbyists.
> > My personal PCB toolchain is Eagle 9.6.2 - PCB-Gcode - UCCNC(UC100) -
> > Stepcraft420/2.?? No file manipulation needed between Eagle layout and
> > the finished circuit board.
> > Any thoughts on this????
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
I don't build boards very often, when I do I have been happy using KiCad.
Steve
On Sunday, January 12, 2025 at 04:37:47 PM CST, peterg1000 via groups.io <petergharrison@...> wrote:
Craig - I fully understand your point of view as a functioning business that must be efficient and up to date with the latest CAD/CAM.
?
I retired from gainful work at the end of the last century - so my desire to learn a new complex (for me) series of tools is somewhat blunted by the intervening years.?
?
When I trialed the free version of "360" I did try, very briefly, to explore the schematic editor by downloading a simple 9.6.2 job, but probably due to lack of basic knowledge managed to screw things up in no time. Perhaps I should be a little more patient and actually read some of the tutorials before trying to do something useful!!!
?
However, the thought of not having any of my design files available locally on my PC does not sit well with me - I remember the days when a central computer was servicing many operators - and the chaos that ensued when it "crashed".? Arrival of the original IBM "PC" was a breath of fresh air - everything importance was saved on 7" floppy discs and archived in a fireproof safe.?
?
Peter
|
I was happy about "buying" a release, and then paying for the next version update.
I am not happy about the subscription model.
Since I am able enough to do what I'd like to do with version 7.7, I see no need to have a version that I have to rent.? It doesn't stop me from wishing changes to 7.7 but that will not be.
Pay once is one thing, pay continually is another.
Cloud is not an option.
Harvey
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 1/12/2025 7:57 PM, joeaverage via groups.io wrote: Hi,
OK, I'm of the opinion that almost everything Autodesk has done is
either drastically limited or paid.
I presume what you are saying is you do not want to pay anything? If that is the case then the offering by
Autodesk is indeed very limited, probably less that you would be satisfied with.
?If you pay then the Autodesk offering is naturally very much better.
Then the question becomes is the offering worth the money paid?. Having a Fusion subscription my self
I am of the opinion that 'yes the software is indeed worth what I pay for it'
Craig
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*[email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of Harvey White <madyn@...>
*Sent:*?Monday, 13 January 2025 1:37 pm
*To:*[email protected] <[email protected]>
*Subject:*?Re: [pcbgcode] Eagle 9.6.2 #eagle #etch #gcode #2-layer
OK, I'm of the opinion that almost everything Autodesk has done is
either drastically limited or paid.
I've got the standard version of Eagle, 7.7.? That was purchased on a
hobby license, so I cannot easily share designs because of the
prohibition on "selling" the design.
You can write a C++ program that reads the .brd file, and creates a
board from a library of parts (that you'd need to provide) modeled in
OpenSCAD.? There's also a program in OpenSCAD that has a library of
parts, but it turns out to be easier (for me) to model everything from
scratch and use my own models.
Not related so much to pcbgcode, but I find it a useful addition.
Harvey
On 1/12/2025 2:45 PM, joeaverage via groups.io wrote:
Hi,
???? Autodesk -? in their wisdom - seem set to kill off the current
???? versions of Eagle, including the free version used by many
???? hobbyists - myself included. The version running under Fusion is
???? apparently not ccompatible with PCB-Gcode as well as forcing use
???? of ghastly Fusion 360.? Gone is the user friendliness of Eagle to
???? be replaced, IMHO, by a user hostile revamp focussed more on
???? mechanical engineering than on the electrical/electronic aspects
???? of the task!!
Autodesk do seem to be prepared to drop EACLE, but Fusion does have
EAGLE built-in. I've Used EAGLE for years, and then transitioned to
Fusion, and unlike you I find the Fusion is very
good. It does all the things that EAGLE did. The one thing that has
changed is that the PCB-Gcode ULP is indeed broken, and while I've
pestered Autodesk to repair it they have
declined. Thus I do all my design work in Fusion, then export the PCB
file to EAGLE to use PCB-Gcode, an extra step to be sure but not that
bad either.
The real advantage of Fusion is the CAD functionality, for which EAGLE
is abysmal. You can design your device in Fusion with all the modern
CAD tools you'd expect. Then extract
the outline including any holes or other placement critical features
and use that to design your board. Vastly better than EAGLE alone.
In addition to CAD tools Fusion has a good CAM functionality, an FEA
module, thermal modelling, generative design, a SPICE modeler.? I
personally use CAD, CAM, Fusion Electronics
(essentially a re-skinned version of EAGLE) and FEA. I also buy Fusion
Machining Extensions that gives me genuine simultaneous four and five
axis tool paths.
My ONLY complaint about Fusion is that the 'pour' function has been
altered, and that is what has broken PCB-Gcode.
Craig
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*[email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of
peterg1000 via groups.io <petergharrison@...>
*Sent:*?Monday, 13 January 2025 1:25 am
*To:*[email protected] <[email protected]>
*Subject:*?[pcbgcode] Eagle 9.6.2 #eagle #etch #gcode #2-layer
Autodesk -? in their wisdom - seem set to kill off the current
versions of Eagle, including the free version used by many hobbyists -
myself included. The version running under Fusion is apparently not
ccompatible with PCB-Gcode as well as forcing use of ghastly Fusion
360.? Gone is the user friendliness of Eagle to be replaced, IMHO, by
a user hostile revamp focussed more on mechanical engineering than on
the electrical/electronic aspects of the task!!
It is possible to legally download Eagle 7.7.0, and this already has
most of the bells and whistles of Eagle 9.6.2 with the exception of
the autorouter and its associated tools.? The V7 track manipulation
facilities are very basic compared to V9, which makes fine tuning of
the layout very tedious.
As a hobbyist community, it would surely be advantageous to lobby
Autodesk to leave the free version as is, but without the requirement
to log in every 2 weeks.? No possible financial loss or gain for
Autodesk but a huge gain for hobbyists.
My personal PCB toolchain is Eagle 9.6.2 - PCB-Gcode - UCCNC(UC100) -
Stepcraft420/2.?? No file manipulation needed between Eagle layout and
the finished circuit board.
Any thoughts on this????
|
Hi,
OK, I'm of the opinion that almost everything Autodesk has done is
either drastically limited or paid.
I presume what you are saying is you do not want to pay anything? If that is the case then the offering by
Autodesk is indeed very limited, probably less that you would be satisfied with.
?If you pay then the Autodesk offering is naturally very much better.
Then the question becomes is the offering worth the money paid?. Having a Fusion subscription my self?
I am of the opinion that 'yes the software is indeed worth what I pay for it'
Craig
OK, I'm of the opinion that almost everything Autodesk has done is
either drastically limited or paid.
I've got the standard version of Eagle, 7.7.? That was purchased on a
hobby license, so I cannot easily share designs because of the
prohibition on "selling" the design.
You can write a C++ program that reads the .brd file, and creates a
board from a library of parts (that you'd need to provide) modeled in
OpenSCAD.? There's also a program in OpenSCAD that has a library of
parts, but it turns out to be easier (for me) to model everything from
scratch and use my own models.
Not related so much to pcbgcode, but I find it a useful addition.
Harvey
On 1/12/2025 2:45 PM, joeaverage via groups.io wrote:
> Hi,
>
>???? Autodesk -? in their wisdom - seem set to kill off the current
>???? versions of Eagle, including the free version used by many
>???? hobbyists - myself included. The version running under Fusion is
>???? apparently not ccompatible with PCB-Gcode as well as forcing use
>???? of ghastly Fusion 360.? Gone is the user friendliness of Eagle to
>???? be replaced, IMHO, by a user hostile revamp focussed more on
>???? mechanical engineering than on the electrical/electronic aspects
>???? of the task!!
>
> Autodesk do seem to be prepared to drop EACLE, but Fusion does have
> EAGLE built-in. I've Used EAGLE for years, and then transitioned to
> Fusion, and unlike you I find the Fusion is very
> good. It does all the things that EAGLE did. The one thing that has
> changed is that the PCB-Gcode ULP is indeed broken, and while I've
> pestered Autodesk to repair it they have
> declined. Thus I do all my design work in Fusion, then export the PCB
> file to EAGLE to use PCB-Gcode, an extra step to be sure but not that
> bad either.
>
> The real advantage of Fusion is the CAD functionality, for which EAGLE
> is abysmal. You can design your device in Fusion with all the modern
> CAD tools you'd expect. Then extract
> the outline including any holes or other placement critical features
> and use that to design your board. Vastly better than EAGLE alone.
>
> In addition to CAD tools Fusion has a good CAM functionality, an FEA
> module, thermal modelling, generative design, a SPICE modeler.? I
> personally use CAD, CAM, Fusion Electronics
> (essentially a re-skinned version of EAGLE) and FEA. I also buy Fusion
> Machining Extensions that gives me genuine simultaneous four and five
> axis tool paths.
>
> My ONLY complaint about Fusion is that the 'pour' function has been
> altered, and that is what has broken PCB-Gcode.
>
> Craig
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* [email protected] < [email protected]> on behalf of
> peterg1000 via groups.io <petergharrison@...>
> *Sent:*?Monday, 13 January 2025 1:25 am
> *To:* [email protected] < [email protected]>
> *Subject:*?[pcbgcode] Eagle 9.6.2 #eagle #etch #gcode #2-layer
> Autodesk -? in their wisdom - seem set to kill off the current
> versions of Eagle, including the free version used by many hobbyists -
> myself included. The version running under Fusion is apparently not
> ccompatible with PCB-Gcode as well as forcing use of ghastly Fusion
> 360.? Gone is the user friendliness of Eagle to be replaced, IMHO, by
> a user hostile revamp focussed more on mechanical engineering than on
> the electrical/electronic aspects of the task!!
> It is possible to legally download Eagle 7.7.0, and this already has
> most of the bells and whistles of Eagle 9.6.2 with the exception of
> the autorouter and its associated tools.? The V7 track manipulation
> facilities are very basic compared to V9, which makes fine tuning of
> the layout very tedious.
> As a hobbyist community, it would surely be advantageous to lobby
> Autodesk to leave the free version as is, but without the requirement
> to log in every 2 weeks.? No possible financial loss or gain for
> Autodesk but a huge gain for hobbyists.
> My personal PCB toolchain is Eagle 9.6.2 - PCB-Gcode - UCCNC(UC100) -
> Stepcraft420/2.?? No file manipulation needed between Eagle layout and
> the finished circuit board.
> Any thoughts on this????
>
|
OK, I'm of the opinion that almost everything Autodesk has done is either drastically limited or paid.
I've got the standard version of Eagle, 7.7.? That was purchased on a hobby license, so I cannot easily share designs because of the prohibition on "selling" the design.
You can write a C++ program that reads the .brd file, and creates a board from a library of parts (that you'd need to provide) modeled in OpenSCAD.? There's also a program in OpenSCAD that has a library of parts, but it turns out to be easier (for me) to model everything from scratch and use my own models.
Not related so much to pcbgcode, but I find it a useful addition.
Harvey
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On 1/12/2025 2:45 PM, joeaverage via groups.io wrote: Hi,
Autodesk -? in their wisdom - seem set to kill off the current
versions of Eagle, including the free version used by many
hobbyists - myself included. The version running under Fusion is
apparently not ccompatible with PCB-Gcode as well as forcing use
of ghastly Fusion 360.? Gone is the user friendliness of Eagle to
be replaced, IMHO, by a user hostile revamp focussed more on
mechanical engineering than on the electrical/electronic aspects
of the task!!
Autodesk do seem to be prepared to drop EACLE, but Fusion does have EAGLE built-in. I've Used EAGLE for years, and then transitioned to Fusion, and unlike you I find the Fusion is very
good. It does all the things that EAGLE did. The one thing that has changed is that the PCB-Gcode ULP is indeed broken, and while I've pestered Autodesk to repair it they have
declined. Thus I do all my design work in Fusion, then export the PCB file to EAGLE to use PCB-Gcode, an extra step to be sure but not that bad either.
The real advantage of Fusion is the CAD functionality, for which EAGLE is abysmal. You can design your device in Fusion with all the modern CAD tools you'd expect. Then extract
the outline including any holes or other placement critical features and use that to design your board. Vastly better than EAGLE alone.
In addition to CAD tools Fusion has a good CAM functionality, an FEA module, thermal modelling, generative design, a SPICE modeler.? I personally use CAD, CAM, Fusion Electronics
(essentially a re-skinned version of EAGLE) and FEA. I also buy Fusion Machining Extensions that gives me genuine simultaneous four and five axis tool paths.
My ONLY complaint about Fusion is that the 'pour' function has been altered, and that is what has broken PCB-Gcode.
Craig
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:*[email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of peterg1000 via groups.io <petergharrison@...>
*Sent:*?Monday, 13 January 2025 1:25 am
*To:*[email protected] <[email protected]>
*Subject:*?[pcbgcode] Eagle 9.6.2 #eagle #etch #gcode #2-layer
Autodesk -? in their wisdom - seem set to kill off the current versions of Eagle, including the free version used by many hobbyists - myself included. The version running under Fusion is apparently not ccompatible with PCB-Gcode as well as forcing use of ghastly Fusion 360.? Gone is the user friendliness of Eagle to be replaced, IMHO, by a user hostile revamp focussed more on mechanical engineering than on the electrical/electronic aspects of the task!!
It is possible to legally download Eagle 7.7.0, and this already has most of the bells and whistles of Eagle 9.6.2 with the exception of the autorouter and its associated tools.? The V7 track manipulation facilities are very basic compared to V9, which makes fine tuning of the layout very tedious.
As a hobbyist community, it would surely be advantageous to lobby Autodesk to leave the free version as is, but without the requirement to log in every 2 weeks.? No possible financial loss or gain for Autodesk but a huge gain for hobbyists.
My personal PCB toolchain is Eagle 9.6.2 - PCB-Gcode - UCCNC(UC100) - Stepcraft420/2.?? No file manipulation needed between Eagle layout and the finished circuit board.
Any thoughts on this????
|
Hi Peter,
However, the thought of not having any of my design files available locally on my PC does not sit well with me -
I was very much of the same opinion. Realistically though how justified is that?.?
For example all my business records, invoices and all that stuff in on the cloud. What's the bet all you medical records and your banking
records are on the cloud too.?
I've come to the realization that its just too late, cloud computing is here and here to stay.?
If there is a debate about whether this is a good idea philosophically or not matters little......what is happening, ie migrating to the cloud, is
happening like it or not. I'd be more concerned about say my business records than I am about Fusion should push come to shove.
What I will call out and describe as a negative consequence of the clou model is the reliance on the internet. If the internet slows or goes cranky then
you might as well kiss getting any work done with Fusion goodbye. Even a slow down can be deleterious, commands can take so long between you and the cloud server
that they can be stacked up, almost ensuring that Fusion will crash on you.
I live rurally, about 30km from the city. My wireless broadband is only fair, to the extent that I cant really use Fusion at home....its just too error prone given
the level of internet service I get there. I am vey much inclined to get Starlink, not so much because I like Musk, or am a real 'power' user, but I would like
to be able to work from home.
Fusion is good, but neither is it that good that you can pick it up in five minutes. It has taken quite some time for me to get fluent with it, but now that I have I?
find it as good as anything else I've used.
If you want a real learning curve try Mastercam. Absolutely superb program to be sure, I still think its the best CAM product bar none, but man...... is it a battle to get to grips
with!
Using Fusion as much as I do I find that I earn the $800NZD/year or so that the Fusion Basic subscription costs me sometimes as often as weekly, and I'm being?slow and lazy
if it does not pay for itself fortnightly. Fusion Machining Extensions (that supports simultaneous four and five axis, collision avoidance and tool path editing) costs an
additional $2400NZD/year. I cannot really justify that cost against the earnings of the business, but as time progresses and I use the four/five axis more and more
it will pay for itself too.
Craig
Craig - I fully understand your point of view as a functioning business that must be efficient and up to date with the latest CAD/CAM.
?
I retired from gainful work at the end of the last century - so my desire to learn a new complex (for me) series of tools is somewhat blunted by the intervening years.?
?
When I trialed the free version of "360" I did try,
very briefly, to explore the schematic editor by downloading a simple 9.6.2 job, but probably due to lack of basic knowledge managed to screw things up in no time. Perhaps I should be a little more patient and actually read some of the tutorials before
trying to do something useful!!!
?
However, the thought of not having any of my design files available locally on my PC does not sit well with me - I remember the days when a central computer was servicing many operators - and the chaos that ensued when it "crashed".?
Arrival of the original IBM "PC" was a breath of fresh air - everything importance was saved on 7" floppy discs and archived in a fireproof safe.?
?
Peter
|
John Johnson