Again, I don’t think it is a problem of quantity in itself (without diving into a discussion about “less” vs. “fewer”), but about keeping distinct suggestions in specific, separate, non redundant threads.
Of course this is easier said than done as many suggestions and topics naturally intersect and are interdependent.
If you take a look at the vast majority of my “duplicate” posts, usually I write some proposal in a topic where an active discussion about possible improvements of Rhino in a certain direction is made. I just add my thoughts there. Then, I include that proposal and further expand it in my common topic. Very few of my proposals are a carbon copy between two topics. I usually expand my proposals in my topic by adding extra text, images and sometimes sample 3dm files.
Also, sometimes I write my proposals only in my common topic. Later (days, months, years later), I may read a random topic with a discussion about a certain functionality of Rhino to be desired by the Rhino users, which is why I include a link to some of my proposal to give an example of how that functionality could be implemented in future Rhino releases. Usually I also write text in that new post in the other topic. The inclusion of a link gives a false impression that my posts are “copied in multiple topics”.
So far, I can’t find a single of my ports being exactly copied into 3 (or multiple) topics, for example. I find, however, some of my posts being linked and further expanded with added extra text to them in the new topic, which is not equal to “posting the same message in multiple topics”.
Take a look at post #8 here, where I proposed a solution to the unwanted shrinkage of the SubD models generated by the “Quad remesh” tool. At first glance it looks “copied in multiple topics”, however, if you check the last post in my common topic (whose purpose is to list a collection of multiple proposals for easy and convenient finding), you will notice that it’s not the same, because I expanded that particular proposal and also uploaded a 3dm file there to make it easier for the developers to investigate that case and hopefully improve the “Quad remesh” tool.
@Rhino_Bulgaria i will speak out frankly from my perspective, since i always get into trouble for speaking out stuff that noone wants to hear you can take it with a grain of salt how much value it adds for you. but really without trying to be offensive, i have followed many of your posts and they though mostly adding value you equally often elaborate on justifications to your own. a rather lengthy essay that plainly and completely off topic focuses on “how you usually do this and that” is just not adding anything whatsoever and is frankly annoying and cluttering up what you are fighting for/spending time on, yourself.
When I read about someone’s request for helping with a challenging modeling case, often times I spend the time to explain how I typically handle similar cases, with the sole intention to help. Like post number 2 in this topic, followed by a proposal in post number 8 as a reply to @theoutside post number 7, because his suggestion made me think about “Quad remesh” and its tendency to shrink the output geometry. This is how I discovered the need for a new way to preserve the original size of the input object by trying to “snap” the middle of the SubD edges to the NURBS model rather than their control points. Hence my proposal there using the same model that I uploaded in post number 2.
I don’t pretend that my suggestions are the most appropriate. There are various ways to handle most challenging cases.
What you mention about “how I usually do this or that” is exactly what I mean. It’s just what I would do to find a solution, relying on my knowledge so far. It’s not necessarily how others would handle the same modeling task. There are plenty of Rhino users who are way more experienced and I learn from them, too. It’s a never ending process.
Maybe this is the time to steer back this thread to its original topic “Fillet Edge”?
When we are starting to discuss our preferences of English prose instead of Rhino commands I feel we need to refocus (I say this as someone who contributed to the deraillement).
Just my 2 eurocent
There are a few solutions already explained in the first 10 posts or so. These include SubD and mesh techniques, “Quad remesh” and “Shrink wrap”. These could be converted to NURBS then. Do you need further help, possibly an alternative solution for NURBS?
I’m allright, thank you.
I just felt the discussion was sliding into “unhelpful” territory.
Just my opinion, though.
If one builds proper NURBS surface models, FilletSrf works very well. If one learns to lay off the premature joinings and booleans, no FilletEdge is needed; also in many cases, it does not work, as @jim and others have shown countless times over the years.
Judging from the pictures of the OP consisting multiple split extrusions, looks like the new “Elmo” (RebuildCrv) tool for a minimalistic rebuilding could help with making the input geometry far more clean, thus easier to apply fillets. Perhaps it would be a matter of minuted to rebuild these and try again with the fillets.
One more thing to mention. It’s often repeated in many topics. Asking for help works best if there is a sample 3dm file or at least some more details, such like what’s the size of the model and the radius to be applied. This particular eagle model could accept tiny fillets even in this state of the geometry. However, Rhino and most CAD programs will struggle with larger fillets due to the split extruded faces and the fact that some of the pieces are really slim and end into a sharp edge.
it does deliver but handles worse than the cheap toilet paper from your nearby (un)trusty convenience store making it for intermediate users a nightmare to accomplish much when the fillets get complex.
I find that very hard to believe, when the NURBS surface model is properly built. There are very many cases where FilletEdge just doesn’t work, such as the classic example below. Industrial designers are taught early on not to think of “edges” but of “what happens between surfaces” (I hope that’s still the case).
NURBS FilletEdge vs FilletSrf 1.3dm (5.0 MB)
You can’t deny that “FilletEdge” created a great modern art installation of an elephant in just one second! Or a rhino, if you look at it from side view. Solidworks is incapable of doing that.
Hi, your result is pretty damn good!
… but I can’t get the same result with just FilletSrf.
Do you mind to elaborate a bit more the process you used to get all clean up?
Especially how you can get the 3rd level of fillet (the one that come into a point).
Thanks
Riccardo
PS: @Gijs would be the FilletEdge be able to achieve this result in V9?
your filet looks like it is less complex, but even here i personally might run into a challenge.
what i wrote above:
specifically when you have to start following systematic orders where to fillet first. it knocks me out and i play dead. for very simple stuff it sure is nice, anything above it is above my pay role.
i like BlendEdge for most of the things i do, its fast and sufficient, and got way better over the years. yes it is not perfect and the results are sometimes bad or better incomplete, in which cases i revert to finding different methods to blend the surfaces.
must be the Serengeti soul deeply imprinted there.
The example goes back to a collection of @jim filleting examples for his highly useful filleting scripts. All you need to think about is between which pairs of surfaces the filleting takes place, see below. The pointy fillet just “happens” correctly, if the surfaces meet the large one tangent. You can always fudge that with SetPt. With Jim’s script, you can even automate the process.
Below is one of Jim’s diverse filleting exercise models; I would say that’s fairly complex? You merely need two clicks with his script, and doing it manually is very straightforward also. For me FilletSrf just works. If only users could let go of that “edge” thinking - I have no idea where it comes from - they’d suffer so very much less.
yes @jim was begging McNeel for years and years to improve/automatise FilletSrf and since it caused such intense gagging reflexes handling the command a script was nothing i personally seemed ready for.. if its that gold and shiny it ought to be made into a proper command maybe.
Jims script was used as a reference for changes that have been incorporated into surface fillet for v9.
i saw a new option, but its always greyed out, curious if it will cause me less gagging reflexes when i am finally smart enough to understand how it works. 
