Now that’s an interesting subject 
I personally really like the design of the VW ID hatchback, by the way 
My next car - if I can afford it…
Philip
1 Like
wait until you see the changes for serial production… but you know, maybe in some years we all say this was the best design ever… so who knows. Maybe I just need to get used to it.
What is this Battledrone Fillets?
Dare to share?
Wow it looks like it is possible to teach you something after all.
Nicely done!
HA HA HA you just can’t quit with the ad hominem attacks. Instead of declaring your self to be a god with infinite knowledge, why don’t you explain what I have got wrong
Interesting asumption.
I already tried to explain it to you. If one fillet fails, you have nothing to generate new fillets from. It is not 100% correct to asume that you can always create a new fillet exactly where another one ends. Even when this works, what would you get from this FilletLoop ? I think it does not add anything new to Rhino which you could not do manually. You’ll end up with a bunch of fillets which are not joined and need to do all the trimming work as it has been before.
The “rare cases” which you described are also not rare at all. The case happens almost everytime because you have multiple surfaces under the ends of each fillet. This is why the fillet actually stops, it acts between 2 surfaces only. It doesn’t even work for breps. Who wants to work with an exploded model only ? I think rolling ball fillets are quite ugly. Maybe i should try with blends.
_
c.
Oh no! That was what I was afraid of… 
Philip
1 Like
+1 …I like them just a little bit different.
Ah, I see! As you well know, those are design and management decisions. It has been tried both ways - from funky, to ‘normal’, and in-between. There is no reason an EV can’t look like every other car.
Still, I’d predict (guess) the best global EV seller of 2019, and perhaps 2020, might be the electric Kona, which, few adornments aside, is identical looking to the dino-juice burner version.
Totally…just goofing. Still, fillets are the glue that make the CAD world go round. Just try not to get any on your fingers…
not quite, e cars have a battery underneath, so car proportions gets a bit different. But yes, I know. This is also my argument. Why not further developing current design. Just because its e, it doesn’t need to be “everything is different now”. But on the other hand, design gets fresh and new, it will need some time to get better but it will get better. That’s my bet. So in reality we might see something in between. Who knows…
sorry, it could have a devastating effect on human life. Would you like to get filleted?
Is it something you’ve developed yourself?
Rhinoscript of battledrone fillets pls.
Resistance is futile. Prepare to be filleted… 
Yes, its not as easy as shown, but I indeed found some ways to automate filleting.
The problem is I got payed for doing it , and I will only get payed further if I don’t share any data related to my work. I’m actually not sure if I already went to far in showing a screenshot.
“Battledrone fillet” is of course not the original name, but I guess if you read last posts you will get it
Why would one fillet fail?
Is it because the topology does not support a fillet or is it because there is a bug in the code?
I’m not assuming anything. I’m explaining what the math dictates. It is correct to say that you can always create a new fillet exactly where another one ends when the surfaces are tangent at the point where the fillet chain crosses the edges. That is to say both base surfaces have surface normals that agree at that one point where the filet contacts the edge.
HA HA HA you are a funny guy. Of course it adds nothing that the user can’t do manually. The purpose is to save the filletSrf user an enormous amount of time and help novice users of filletSrf who don’t know where to click to make the necessary fillets.
If your script ends with all the fillets selected then the user can quickly do the joining and trimming themselves. (again we will assume the user to be more competent to do this than the programmer) In the original example it takes only one click to trim and then select everything and join.
I already explained a couple times how that should be handled - go back and read it.
Then something is wrong. Why would it not work for breps? Is it that the SDK won’t identify surfaces contained in a brep?
Good luck with that. There are a bunch of reasons why CAD software are using rolling ball fillets and not blends, but I will let you stumble over those hurdles by yourself.
Fair enough.
Alright, this is getting OT, but anyway… I actually like the direction the design is going - just because EVs “have to” look different. I like when a design is clean and stripped down. No unnecessary ‘decorating’ elements. Car design is so far behind compared to architecture - IMHO, of course If you see a picture from the early 1930s of a car parked outside a modern building from that age - lets say something by Le Corbusier or Alvar Aalto (for example Villa Savoye or Turun Sanomat) -the car from that age looks like it’s 50 years older 
Philip
I’m not a real car designer, so my opinion may not represent a common car designers opinion:
I think modern car design was always depending on a very tight “cage” of regulations (safety, technical aspects, aerodynamics etc etc). These regulations made it impossible to design something ground breaking new. A different feature line there, a new light there but in the end you see much more similarities between cars, as differences. This is boring. There is no modularity, not even more than 10 colours. What an invention when Mini offered more colours for serial production…
Now we have a situation where a lot of untouchable concepts changed from one day to another. Its not only because of becoming an e-car, but also because of the digitalisation of something mechanical. We have more space inside, we don’t even need to drive anymore (they say…). So the traditional car becomes obsolete.
Last month I was driving a tesla s, but it felt so different. It had more to do with flying a space ship, as with driving a car. The interior was dominated by a huge display, this actually distracted so much from the felling of driving, that it made rethink about what car driving actually is.
However you could also spot a lack of detail and a lot of error in design. Don’t get me wrong, I like the design, but its incomplete. And this is what happened with VW much more now, because they don’t really do the change with free will. Its a hard fight for survival, and we lost the initiative.
On the other hand current native design is much more mature. Even untrained eyes will see a difference.
Constant repetition made life very easy for all people involved. It is much easier to “facelift” a design as making it new, although some disagree here. It will work, adding some features here and there, but in the end of the day it becomes good. “Stable design” is even a kind of corporate design for german cars. You can like, or you don’t. I understand both.
Regarding the concept design, concept design is also never really close to what’s feasible. That’s the old talk :" if you think about feasibility all the time, its not designing".
Therefore final design has to change, being a compromise between technical and design needs, making it in most cases less consequent, ergo less attractive. But I guess same things in architecture. Utopia vs. Reality. Le Corbusier was copied many times, never with the truly same idea behind. I vaguely remember ‘Unité d’Habitation’ from my classes at university, about the intention and what became out of it in the 70’s and 80’s… I remember my professor saying : “pig stables”