I noticed this small issue when trying to fillet an edge between two cylinders. For instance below, I make a boolean union of a cylinder (D500 thick 30) and a small cylinder (D40 thick 30) , I tried to make a fillet of radius 50 mm on the edge but the small cylinder’ seam is too close to the edge and seems to block to fillet.
I thought it would be really easy to fix but actually it’s a little annoying, the small cylinder’ seam creates a divided edges on the top and bottom surface and it’s not so quick to fix.
I am surprised this very simple thing isn’t correctly handle in rhino 7 and 8 ? I tried to slide the seam toward the small cylinder perimeter but could make it after boolean union…
Wouldn’t it be something interesting to fix ?
I agree that it should have been automatically solved.
in the absence of that possibility:
i’d manually rebuild the remaining cylinder surface and edges.
preferably, you’d rotate the cylinder so that it’s seam lied “inside” the larger shape
even more preferably, i’d solve this issue with curves - no real need for the boolean operation here.
Try NURBS surface modelling approaches instead of “booleans”, “joining” and “edges”. All those problems will disappear. Rhino has good surface modelling tools.
I understand I personnaly do, but when I present the software for the first time to students I want to show them how quick and easy we can make complexe volumes, without going to deep into details at first. But you’re right I will change the way I model this part :))
That is, in my humble opinion, the worst one can do - because then the students will cling to an allegedly “easy” and “one-click” way of working, struggle a lot as you can see from all the “boolean” and “edge fillet” problems on this forum and others, and on top never learn proper NURBS surface modelling in the first place.
In my experience, basic formal aesthetics for beginners are easily modelled with good old surface modelling methods, and the students “get into the habit” right from the start.
