Testsphericalpatch

[cfee]

Jim-

THANKS ! THIS makes a HUGE potential difference. I’ll check it out and get back to you, but am expecting success.

So- let’s be clear - in a CLOSED POLYSURFACE use filletsrf instead.

Thanks again -

CFee.

[emilio]

Hi Jim

Very clear explanation, as usual.
This is the kind of info that many new users need IMO.

I agree that it would be fine if FilletSrf were able to handle spherical fillets.

Still I would be glad if the command Chuck told us about

@chuck

The current thought is to have a command that makes a sphere tangent to three surfaces, with the option to trim the result to the sector defined by the arcs

appeared as a new command. ( Independently from FilletSrf )
I also see it as another way to build spheres ( trimmed or not ), that can be useful in itself.
One more tool in that nice toolbox called Rhino.

What do you think ?

Cheers

[jim]

@emilio

Still I would be glad if the command Chuck told us about

The current thought is to have a command that makes a sphere tangent to three surfaces, with the option to trim the result to the sector defined by the arcs

appeared as a new command. ( Independently from FilletSrf )

Yes I agree completely that a command that builds a sphere of a given radius that is tangent to 3 surfaces would be useful.

What I object to is the claim that this new command addresses a serious bug in the filletSrf command. What it really does is make that bug even more entrenched and even less likely to ever be fixed correctly.

If a user is using the FilletSrf command and makes a fillet that ends where it runs into another fillet of the same size that user should be able to treat that surface like any other surface and make 2 clicks to create the next fillet in the string and then move on to the next fillet. The user shouldn’t be told “FilletSrf failed to create fillets” . And now that the code has been written to make that fillet in that situation it seems perfectly reasonable to expect it will be used.

[Clark]

Two thumbs up Jim

[pascal (Pascal Golay)]

@jim

the claim that this new command addresses a serious bug in the filletSrf command.

Hi jim, I’m having trouble locating that claim. Would that be from a McNeel person? Is it in this thread?

-Pascal

[anon55473861]

hi pascal, i am not very sure but i believe it derived out of those 2 comments.
so basically you are even a part of it

@JimCarruthers

It creates corner ball fillets, useful for when using FilletSrf on a complex model instead of FilletEdge, so you don’t have to place a sphere and trim it out. You enter the radius desired and pick the surfaces that you’re filleting between.

@pascal

Hi jim - it’s not being made a separate command. It already is a separate command, it’s just being made accessible to users who don’t know about a hidden test command. Whatever the shortcomings of filleting in Rhino, some can be worked around with this function - that is a lot different bit of typing than rewriting FillletSrf to incorporate it, even assuming that is a good idea. i.e. You can have it now or ‘sometime’.

-Pascal

[pascal (Pascal Golay)]

@RichardZ

derived

Yes.

-Pascal

[anon55473861]

@pascal

Yes.

are you going to lose your job now?

@pascal

that is a lot different bit of typing than rewriting FillletSrf to incorporate it, even assuming that is a good idea. i.e. You can have it now or ‘sometime’.

thinking about it, wouldn’t it be manageable that the ui with this regular little pop up window could address many different commands and it just gets an extra check for this and voila its in one command? all those test commands which nobody knows of… even if they dont work fully but in a wip 6 at least they could appear at least close to where they belong. i mean i wish this for the mac version then.

[pascal (Pascal Golay)]

@RichardZ

are you going to lose your job now?

For what, again? I’m still looking for the claim.

-Pascal

[jim]

@pascal

I’m having trouble locating that claim

I have explained this several times…

When the user is running filletSrf and clicks on a surface that is a fillet
of the same radius and another surface the user gets the response “FilletSrf failed to create fillets” That’s a bug. Whether or not anyone at McNeel is honest enough to admit it - It is still a bug.

There is no excuse for filletSrf to fail to create the requested fillet as long as the surfaces are close enough so that the fillet can be tangent to both surfaces. There is no reason the user should be expected to leave the filletsrf command start another command and pick a bunch of surfaces that may not even exist. That’s an absurd workaround to get Rhino to run the code that makes the surface All the information that is needed to create the correct surface is already there when the user picks the 2 surfaces that the fillet connects. There is absolutely no reason for the user to be asked to do anything at all.

You tell us the code has already been written that produces the correct surface but you are going to first make the user perform a complex chicken dance before you will run that code and produce the surface.
Do you think people aren’t going to complain?

If the intent of making this a test command is to test the code to see if it works properly, nobody objects to that. But if you think that a separate command is a an acceptable permanent substitute for actually fixing the failure bug that occurs inside FilletSrf when the user clicks on a surface with a same size fillet, that’s ridiculous.

[pascal (Pascal Golay)]

Hi jim - A test command that is useful for some users making fillets between surfaces is being exposed as a real command, nothing more than that. This is not being done instead of incorporating the function into FilletSrf; that is simply not going to happen for V6 regardless of what happens to the test command.

-Pascal

[jim]

@pascal

Hi jim - A test command that is useful for some users making fillets between surfaces is being exposed as a real command, nothing more than that.

I fully understand what you are intending to do. I’m trying to convince you to consider doing something far more useful instead.

@pascal

This is not being done instead of incorporating the function into FilletSrf;

It is obvious that statement is not true. We can see you have chosen to continue to allow filletSrf to fail instead of calling this function and producing the surface when the user asks for it.

You know filletEdge has this same bug. If the user selects edges that contain a same size fillet the filleting will fail. There is really no excuse for not fixing the bugs.
Don’t you think the users are getting weary of the pooh-poohing of suggestions to fix the bugs and instead being given tiresome workarounds?

[pascal (Pascal Golay)]

@jim

It is obvious that statement is not true.

sigh.

Here are some things that are not true-

@jim

trying to persuade me that FilletSrf should not call this code

@jim

What you are saying is that you prefer that FilletSrf respond to that situation with “FilletSrf failed to create fillets.”

@jim

the claim that this new command addresses a serious bug in the filletSrf command

Here is a thing that is true:

To the best of my knowledge, FilletSrf will not be changed at this point for V6.
Relevant Sub-fact: this is in no way related to what happens to the the test command.

-Pascal

[jim]

For almost 20 years users have been working around this bug by either arranging it so that same size fillets never cross or by making their own spherical surface in places where same size fillets cross. Its really disheartening that these simple to fix bugs just keep going on and on and on.

@pascal

Here are some things that are not true-

trying to persuade me that FilletSrf should not call this code

Anyone can see that is what you have been doing. And I remain unpersuaded that filletsrf should not call this code

You said it would involve rewriting FillrtSrf. That is total nonsense. The only situation where this code would ever be called would be when FilletSrf is currently bailing out and sending the message to the command line that “FilletSrf is unable to create fillets”.
All that has to be done is run the code and produce the surface instead of sending that failure message to the command line. Any part of Filletsrf that is currently producing results would be completely unaffected. So there is really no change at all to those parts of filletsrf that are currently producing fillets.

[cfee]

Jim -

Hi-

I tried FILLETSRF on a CLOSED Polysurface cube. Clearly I’m doing something wrong ?

Thanks -

Chuck.

[clement]

@cfee, this post is about _TestSphericalPatch not _FilletSrf. If you want to try it on a box, just run the command and pick the 3 faces of a box. It should give you a portion of a sphere surface as a result.

_
c.

[cfee]

@clement-

Thanks, but didn’t work. Confident I selected 3 surfaces of a closed cube incorrectly (NOTcorrectly), but wasn’t successful.

I’ll keep trying.

Thanks -

-C.

[cfee]

Yeah, except that one of the early replies was about filletsrf, and was trying that as a possible workaround … .

Oh well.

Thanks -

C.