Well I made my own github repo for this some time ago 
I’ll be happy to make the work converge on yours. I’ll figure out how to send you a PR when the repo is not a fork of yours
2 Likes
I’ll look the diff of your post and mine to see what you did and get back.
1 Like
By the way I just fixed a bug that might have impacted some designs. I still need to fully validate it but it’s in the pierce-only branch
2 Likes
Been sick at home for 4 days, will look at this a little on Friday.
No problem in fact that will allow me to finish this bugfix
1 Like
Gosh, I wish there was a way to emphasize this more…Anyone that spends anytime working with and learning templates in fusion will be happy campers. They are not hard at all…it just may be something folks over look. Or they me seem obscure…they aren’t. Best cheat codes ever.
I have templates for different thickness of material. Within those I have templates for large and small circles, straight lines no leads, contours etc. I can get from solid to cutting in no time at all.
2 Likes
When you say:
“Fusion splits circles into 2 arcs using G3 with I and J.”
This needs possibly more study. In the post-processor, line 33:
maximumCircularSweep = toRad(180);
This might control the behavior. Is it really necessary? Or is it just the default proposed by the AutoDesk CAM guide that Mr. Langmuir has used to create the PostProcessor? Also:
Pretty much it says that Fusion can do what it wants and I have at least one design where holes are split into THREE arcs with a slightly different center, so that I have to take that into account when doing pierce-only and avoid piercing the same center more than once. Or maybe I could try to use the “circularMergeTolerance” property.
If I read this thread again, it seems like user @ChelanJim has access to a post processor described as 1.6.2; is it the same as the one user @holla2040 has made available on his github or we are talking about some new version from Langmuir?
It was supplied by Dan Brown. Here is his post on the thread he started and he attached the post processor to this post:
And I don’t know this gentleman. He is just another member of the forum.
1 Like
Ouch what a mess with multiple versions of the post processor flying around. I’ll continue to maintain my “pierce-only” version out of the “official” release 1.6 one can download from the Langmuir website, but hopefully there can be a better way to handle this in the future…
Yes, I agree. I just happened to have followed Craig’s post and saw what he had done and was very excited about it. Then I saw Dan’s post and shared it with Craig. To make a long story short Craig threw a snowball at my head and told me to …no that’s another story.
Craig and I discussed how messy it was. Then you caught wind of our conversation, which was good. Like I said earlier, you both have some things that I wished were included because I don’t desire to CAM a project multiple times. It is hard enough to keep track of what is my pierce delay today.
2 Likes
Yeah. And unfortunately there’s another Post floating around that I uploaded. I believe I labeled it -1.7 to keep it different. (Post provides setting springback and backlash.)
I’ll leave that alone at this point to the experts…
I really have no easy solution to this. Langmuir people have no time to follow up
@Simsworx welcome to the club and I used -1.7 in February 2023 
1 Like
You created the 1.7 post processor didn’t you?
Created… Maybe just modified the code to allow an extra User Input. I figured -1.7 would keep it different from the others I had. (Note - I left the -1.6af notation at the top of the code.)
FWIW - I’ve been using it for over 8 months with no issues.
2 Likes
That is in Dan’s post processor as well that surprisingly came from Autodesk.
It’s not really an Autodesk thing, it’s something that the FireControl needs in order 2B able to process the file.
1 Like
I know. But that is what Craig was surprised about Dan Brown’s Post processor: he submitted his request to them and someone there at Autodesk sent back that process file.
Craig’s comment to me was “Isn’t that the responsibility of the table manufacture and not Autodesk?”
Just so you know, you guys are so many steps ahead of me with this programming stuff that I am just now being able to understand the g-code files, if I really pay attention.
1 Like
I might as well chime in, since I’m being mentioned. The problem I was looking to solve was having basic values stored in the tool(s) in Fusion, and not having to re-enter them in the NC dialog. The pierce height, cut height, and pierce delay were not being transferred from the tool. They are coded as default values as user parameters in the Langmuir post processor.
Being a paid customer of Autodesk I reached out to support for some guidance on modifying the post processor They were kind enough to add the hooks to grab the values from the tool and explain what was going on. After testing it, it provided what I was looking for. So, I shared it in the forum. I also sent a copy to support, in case they want to incorporate any of it in a future release.
Use it if you want, incorporate it into other mods, or ignore it.
As far as being Autodesk responsible, they were merely providing excellent support to a paying customer.
3 Likes
I actually have been using it. I have not cut the files yet but I have three ready to go.
1 Like