Hi Chuck, Bob. I’ll do that. It might take a week or so as I am away from the office delivering training. Phil
This is a bit OT since this is about FilletSrf:
Would it be possible to make a fillet surface with “0” units? Like for curves?
Take a look at the file, if I use filleSrf with “1” unit then it would be nice to be asked if it should extend, and if I extended it then I can use both “0” and “1” unit. (But it acts odd with “0” as it picks the “wrong” ends of the surfaces to keep)
fillet 0.3dm (55.4 KB)
I’ll look into the bug of keeping the wrong end right away. I think I know what the problem is.
For your main request, as is often the case, the solution is relatively obvious in the example, but not in general. Would you only expect this to work if the surfaces already partially intersect? If so, then this might not be too difficult. If not, and part of the interface involves picking edges to extend, then it also might work. Would you want to choose the extension type as in the ExtendSrf command? I don’t know when anyone would be able to get to this, but I when add it to the list, I would like to have as much detail as possible.
I fixed the problem of the incorrect ends being kept. It should work in the next v5 service release.
I would like to have a dialog box pop up where we can pick options and have a live preview. Where it is also possible to change the radius value. (Or even enter an asymetrical one like chamfer has, but that is a different need and a different wish)
I like NetworkSurf’s GUI, and I would also like to have many more commands with GUI’s like that.
The reason is that in cases like this the users is often using Rhino for designing (and not hardcore construction) so seeing how the different options affect the end result is key.
Hi Jorgen - re the GUI and going back to fillets, I think it would be interesting to look at a Blend Srf like GUI for solid fillets/blends. This could allow for interactive shape change with the sliders and changing the degree as well to accommodate more difficult situations - I understand this isn’t easy btw!
True, BlendSrf also has a nice GUI.
Another thing for V6 and GUI’s, it would be nice to be able to choose different analysis methods, like zebra and emap, for the preview. Then the user can really fine tune the shape.
Interesting - I generally do the opposite - I always try to go back to the curves if possible, as ‘policy’, though of course it makes little or no difference in some cases. Just because as a rule, if there is a difference, the curve is likely to be simpler and truer than the edge (say, a sweep2 rail curve compared the edge of the resulting surface).
…Especially when the edges are trimmed. Curves for me too!
It depends on the surface, if we need tangency/curvature or not.
I agree with the theory in some circumstances Pascal / Phil. But Holo is ABSOLUTELY right. There is little point in building new adjacent surfaces from the original, cleaner curves (fewer control points, etc) if the objective is to maintain tangency / curvature between adjacent surfaces.
Of course. That’s why, in my opinion, Rhino could do with more ways of building cleaner ‘explicitly created’ surfaces.
Sorry didn’t finish before hitting reply…
As sometimes the only route to getting clean geometry (if one is trying to get near Class A) is to build transition surfaces from matched curves to create a ‘clean’ surface and match Srf afterwards - this a slow and iterative process. Actually to be fair (no pun intended) the workflow to create perfect blends in Alias is pretty iterative too.
Sounds good to me Phil. I’d like to see the specification
The theoretical simplified (reduction in control points) rebuild of two or more or all adjacent surfaces in a polysurface without them breaking apart whilst maintaining curvature and / or tangency would be great. In the smooth way akin to a Land Surveyor specifying a coarse break line to be a cliff edge / kerb edge in a TIN model, it would be great to say: “see this curve here - this surface in these cojoined surfaces in a polysurface, must always critically flow through this” - or - "See this curve here - that must always create a crease. However, I am glad I am not the NURBS mathematician that is tasked with trying to work that out. Weiguo Li’s software is often remarkable. And oftentimes it is a disaster. A bit like the fillet edge command sometimes is.