This fillets are really annoying.would be nice to have a solution form the software without the need of manual workaround.
Not to be redundant but this is easily solved in parametric software.
This is a great example. Itâs one of the biggest reasons Rhino fails imo. Rhino just doesnât realize it can delete faces or move the edge or something lol â or add coplanar faceâŚetc.
Iâll be relentlessly reflecting on this over time, and any others I can think of.
This is a great example too, one thatâs been on my mind. Iâll share similar stuff in the future.
I played with this file a little bit, and Iâm really surprised how bad Rhino is at the fullnose radius
wow
âŚ
I was messing with file tolerance and almost got it to work:
Yeah, I canât get it to work. I had no idea it was this bad lol
Changing tolerances in the middle of modeling is a great way to cause problems with edges not matching and similar.
An absolute tolerance of 2.0 is an almost certain method of causing assorted problems, including with edges.
Iâm thoroughly aware of that probability.
But when Rhino fails to fillet even the most simple task, I think it warrants a little adjustment to tolerance â even if itâs âin the middle of modelingâ.
I also tried building the model from scratch after tolerance instances changes.
Iâm thoroughly aware of that. Iâve been around the barbeque since 2004.
@davidcockey Why does Rhino fail to fillet the most simple task regardless of tolerance?
Notice how the changes to the tolerance almost got it to work? â probably nothing tho right?
Thatâs why I was changing it
I thought, âoh maybe itâs having a hard time doing it âexactlyââ. And it almost worked I thought.
lol. Iâm good. Iâll change it when I want.
Or can lead to some operations succeeding â like joining edges to become âclosedâ.
Tolerance is relative. If I get a file from a client and the model has errors under a tolerance of 0.0001", but it will close @ 0.0005", Iâll be changing the tolerance mid-build if I want to move forward with said relativity.
Probably true, unless the operation isnât working cause there isnât enough tolerance, then the user can decide to do so if they want. Thatâs probably why the option is there.
I made a tool pallet specifically for doing so in V5, maybe I should share it with you ta ruffle some feathers
I should rename it âmid-build tolerance toggleâ:

I literally made that pallet in like 2011 or so, for a client as per their request.
Theyâve been asking me to do it again recently â theyâre not very good about managing their pallets.
So, itâs been on my mind â Iâll probably make a new version for V7 soon.
If Rhino fails to successfully fillet the most basic full-nose-radius geometry regardless of a dozen different tolerance combinations, then the problem isnât the âtolerance changes mid buildâ.
âToleranceâ should be a âthresholdâ that Rhino can use to deviate various transformations.
I was merely changing tolerance as an experiment to see if it was related.
Now I know, Rhino probably isnât failing due to tolerance strictness. Itâs failing due to something else.
here is another nice example, where _filletEdge fails
done manual with _filletSrfâŚ
(and a few tricks to use _filletEdge for most of the stuffâŚ)
clamp_2023.3dm (5.1 MB)
⌠it was the original Idea of this topic just to collect examplesâŚ
Another nice example of filletEdge fails
I think thatâs a good thing, but at some point these issues should be distilled down to the principle causalities that lead to these failures.
These examples seem to becoming redundant.
Iâm pretty sure thereâs a list somewhere that explicates whatâs causing every single failure.
The developers probably have a list by now, Iâd imagine. Right?
Probably one of the main reasons âfilletsrfâ doesnât fail when âfilletedgeâ does, is due to lack of trimming requisites.
âfilletedgeâ fails alot due to adjacent edges to the edges being filleted.
(You could probably split an edge, within a âfilletedgeâ, with an adjacent edge, upto any successful âfilletedgeâ, and that âfilletedgeâ would fail.)
So, with that well-known causality, what code is missing in Rhino that would overcome said causality?
Maybe thereâs a pattern throughout Rhino with other commands. This issue sounds similar:
@menno
even if there is already a lot of work aboveâŚ
I will keep collecting:
Variable fillet on Polysurface
- my guess, this example also shows some weakness of the current algorithms:
with a tricky setup (left, splitAtTangent = No, mergeSrf) FilletEdge can do the variable fillet, with a standard polysurface (right) not:
fillet edge setting:
result:
fillet_fail_Stecker_00.3dm (3.6 MB)
Background ⌠Detail of this power-plug
kind regards -tom
Thanks. I have added this to the list of existing fillet edge issues.
Please understand that this will take time to fix, where hopefully we can do something for v9.
⌠take the time needed⌠great to know somebody is working on it.
donât worry Rhino still like ya
Hope we get Rhino to fillet better someday.
That looks like a good thread, imma check it out.
fillet fails at Pole of _railrevolve
see this file / topic:
@menno
hope you have seen this topic - related to Surface Filleting across Tangent Faces
and @Gijs
would love to see above cases to be in the collection here as well:
looking forward to see those very welcome improvements - thanks - cheers - tom
Hi Tom , isnât some of this is the way things are built as to why they donât work? I donât claim to know the right way, but have seen enough examples like singularities and three sided surfaces are not a good way for things to work.
There are always people here at the forum that bring Rhino a little further in development. Itâs guys like you that are bringing it for sure.â-Mark

would love to see above cases to be in the collection here as wel
what do you mean? That all samples from this thread get added to the file with samples that Jim provided?

in the collection
ok i thought the file in the video was your collection / your test file, did not get if from the context that it s jimâs file. sorry for not following the topic with all infos..
kind regards - tom