Can you send me a screenshot of your result? And if you send the fusion file I can take a quick look. Send via email: [email protected]

Here's a link to a video that addresses this issue. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oXWaaYJvadabo8U

Here is a video to clarify the creation of the HeelHelper3 sketch and it's associated extrude. Let me know if this doesn't answer your query. kzbin.info/www/bejne/pqC7aZWfrM53l9k

Thank you. I hope my video helps.

By the way my son uses this old account of mine, so all the posts are him. I need to get him his own account set up.

Hello. Sure. Send me an email at [email protected] and I’ll reply with the model. And yes, we can chat but I’m quite busy finishing up a large project for my finals. Hopefully I’ll be done by tomorrow evening so maybe Saturday morning?

If there is I haven’t been able to find any. That was a part of the inspiration. The other inspiration was to document it for myself. It is so complex and detailed that I can’t remember how I did something months from now. The videos let me go back in time to get reminders.

Sure, no problem. I posted this for you... kzbin.info/www/bejne/a3yomJVteLCMfJI . Let me know if that doesn't answer your question.

@@palemoonranch yes its a perfect explanation thank you so much for your kindness!

The arc on the narrow side of the body is the profile being swept. The arc on the long side of the body is the path. So the arc profile is swept along that path remaining on that radius. In other words, the arc being swept is swept along the path of the path arc, not thru it.

@@palemoonranch Right, but does the plane of the arc being swept remain vertical or does it tilt as it moves? If it remains vertical, then you're not getting a sphere. I'm sure the difference is so small it doesn't matter, I'm just trying to understand the sweep command.

I'm sorry my answer was unclear or vague. The answer is that the arc being swept will remain perpendicular to the path it is swept on. Here is a quick video that gives you a visual clarification of what is occuring with the sweep. kzbin.info/www/bejne/naLPhGiOp6uEbMU

The result here is exactly the same as you would get if you pressed it into a radiused dish. I can't post a screenshot here to illustrate it seems. The result would be more obvious if we were creating a round shape instead of a guitar shape. Here is a link to a screenshot where I have exaggerated the radiuses and cut it out round. Bowl Shaped. 1drv.ms/i/s!Av5nX3mKkMa3hZNybXLuTmFeB6Dt1Q?e=KTRgDC I would have to look into that. I've never considered doing that, but it would probably be doable if it looks like I think.

I see where you are going with that. Always more than one way to skin a cat, right? I'm not sure what you are saying about not being able to machine the bottom of the fret slots perpendicular to the fretboard surface. Are you saying it won't machine the radius? It will. I'll setup the CAM when I am back home and see if what you are trying to say clicks. But a 3d pocket will cut the radius.

@@palemoonranch A flat end endmill will climb and descend the slot in the Z axis leaving a slight fillet on slot corners. Probably not a problem because the bottom the frets will have a small fillet as well. I'm interested in seeing if Fusion's simulation will show this residue fillet from the slot operation with an flat end mill.

I agree. I'm working out the details of that now. Curved surfaces can be a challenge to work with in Fusion but I have it almost worked out (in theory :)). I'll be using surface modeling to get there. I'll be posting another update soon if it pans out.

@@palemoonranch have you watched any videos from 'Fusion 360 School'? He makes great videos that cover challenges like this.

Yes, I watch his videos. Not all but some. This fretboard design is based on the work done by Austin Shaner. The complex shape makes it challenging to work with because solid modeling tools and sketches don't work on curved surfaces. This fretboard is not only curved but compound, meaning that it has a 12" radius at the nut and a 16" radius at the heel. However, surface modeling can solve many problems with modeling these surfaces. In any event, I have come up with a solution that works and is fully parametric and works with hidden and exposed tangs. I'll record another video tomorrow that shows the implementation.

@@palemoonranch I figured the fretboard was curved and compound. This does make it more of a challenge. The Shaner video collection is well documented. Look forward to your solution. Thanks for the quick replies.

It still need an hour or so to complete processing up to HD but here is my solution for radiused fret slots. kzbin.info/www/bejne/m2G8ZWedfNaXq5I

Hard to say without seeing your model. If you want to send it to me email it to [email protected]

@@palemoonranch thanks so much for your kindness i sent it to your mail❤

Ok, well, this one is my fault. The instructions I gave in the video were for hidden tangs. I published a short video explaining how to get the curved bottom to the fret slots when the tangs are exposed. Sorry for the confusion. Here is the video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/r4Gbpamoq86rp68

Here is a better solution that is fully parametric if you want the fret slots radiused on the bottom. kzbin.info/www/bejne/m2G8ZWedfNaXq5I. Depending on when you get this it might need a little more time to process up to HD.

I radius the top and bottom in the model for a couple of reasons. The first is that I need the radiused top and bottom to use as cutting tools to model almost everything else including the sides, heel block, tail block, top and bottom braces, side braces, and the kerfed linings. These things will all actually be cut on the CNC with the radius. The other reason is just for the aesthetic of having the model be true. I don't radius it so I can cut it that way on the CNC. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the top and bottom should be cut flat and the radius applied to force them to conform to the radiused braces. This will put tension in the top and bottom which I believe is something we want. I could be wrong but that is my thinking. I do have a technique for flattening the models for the purpose of carving them.

Very interesting. I have those books actually. I tried reading them a couple years ago but the math involved in understanding what they were talking about was overwhelming. Since then I have been working on an Advanced Manufacturing Engineering degree and have some math courses under my belt now. It's funny because I've been thinking about getting these books back out in the last few weeks and here you are bringing them up. Definitely going to be getting back into them. I am curious how the density of the soundboard (species of wood) plays into this. Cedar vs spruce vs maple or other hardwoods. Yeah, I saw that the fluid volume only worked with parametric mode turned off. I've been pretty busy so I hadn't gotten time to play with it. I will now though. Good work.

@@palemoonranch The density and stiffness of the top and back panel will determine how thick to make them. There's a formula in the book on page 4-61 for thickness. You measure length, width, thickness, weight, and three frequencies with a mic into your computer. Plug these seven numbers into the formula, get a thickness. But basically, denser materials will make heavier tops. And the heavier the top, the harder it is for the strings to accelerate it, and the quieter the guitar. An approximate measure of this is the material's sound radiation coefficient (page 4-19) = SQRT(E/ρ^3) where E is the young's modulus of elasticity and ρ is the density. You can look these numbers up on wood-database. For example, Sitka is E=11,030,000 pascals, and ρ=425 kg/m3, R = SQRT(11,030,000/425^3) = 12. Higher is better (radiates more sound). Bigleaf Maple is about 10. Go to wikipedia and find the "Tonewood" page, you can see R for many species, and sort by that column. You'll see Engelmann near the top, at 12.9. Balsa and Paulownia are probably not practical (would break and/or dent). We discuss the books over on the anzlf forum. I've implemented all the interesting formulas from the book and posted spreadsheets there, if you're interested. You can use them to design an acoustically optimal guitar. Well, that's my hope. It's yet to be proven. I'm going to model my guitar in Fusion using the numbers from the spreadsheets, build it, see what I get. There may need to be some adjustments to the spreadsheets. We'll see.

I'll definitely look for that forum and check out the Wikipedia. I'm curious, do these formulas account for different types of bracing. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they propose something different from the traditional X-bracing?

@@palemoonranch The thicknessing formula says nothing about the bracing. That's a separate issue. This is just how thick to make the panel so you get consistent vibration regardless of what species of wood you use. Whether it's WRC, Sitka, or Maple, the finished guitars should sound about the same (all other things being equal). He does have a section where he hints how to calculate if your braces will break (exceeds maximum stress). He says, go look it up in a text book. So I did, and I included the brace stress calc in the spreadsheet. But he doesn't even talk about how to calc soundboard stiffness. It's basically a composite beam, so I looked this up too, and added that to the spreadsheet. None of this depends on any particular bracing pattern. It's just calcing the stiffness at a cross-section 50mm ahead of the saddle. Whatever happens to be there. The Build book shows how to construct several styles of braces, including one of his own design, he calls "falcate". They're curved, not straight. He uses a CF overlay, but you don't have to.

Thank you for saying so. I'm working on them as I can. I created this model 2 years ago and I'm amazed to learn while documenting this how much I've learned since then. I'm actually having to rebuild the model as I go to incorporate all I've learned since.

I'm sure you will

It is a simple matter to get the surface area of the top using the measure tool. The volume of the body is not so simple. Fusion does provide the "Boundary Fill" tool for this purpose but it doesn't seem to want to work on this model, perhaps due to the complex shape (radiused top and bottom). However, I have uploaded a video for you to show how you can get the volume with just a bit more work. kzbin.info/www/bejne/maStk4qterV0jtE. Hope this answers your question.

Sure, no problem. Part 2 shows how I modeled the fipple. I'm happy to share my model. Send me an email at [email protected] and I'll reply with the model.

I have no problem sharing the model if you want.

​@@palemoonranch I would certainly appreciate the file. Do you just want to attach it to an email?

@@HiddenmesaTravel Yes. Email me at [email protected] and I'll reply with the fusion files.

I have a model for 3d printing that breaks the flute into 3 parts. I have not printed it yet and it needs some adjustment for tolerance where the part are assembled. I can send you the model if you are interested. Of course, if you have a printer that can print it in one piece then you don't need it.

You are welcome.