All industries that make parts that have sharp edges that can cut the customer’s skin open, causing injury – sheet metal, injection molded parts, etc.
It’s way too common.
Most manufacturers are guilty of skipping the steps to mitigate this issue. Which is why the debate over fillets will always be such a silly one, until manufacturers actually start doing their job and having actual deburring departments address the sharp edges they keep allowing their products to have.
Look at any product laying around, and you’ll see sharp edges on it due to avoidance of cost of removing said sharp edge.
True unless they’re in the business of doing that part. It’s funny when ‘sticker makers’ don’t want to have to do any CAD and they just want to make stickers by pushing one button or so.
I agree with Jim’s point. The people creating the real geometry from the digital geometry will have to deal with many things that the designer rarely will ever consider.
Unless the designer is also the person creating the whole design in reality, then they will face every problem associated with that.
But how often does someone have every tool necessary to do all phases of CAD/CAM/CNC etc. …
That’s the dream. So much so, companies often just don’t do post op work, and pretend it’s fine with burrs and sharp edges everywhere.
You might even put a fillet in the design, and the toolmaker will bypass it and pretend it doesn’t have to be there. There might be a burr, and they’ll just say ‘well it’s too expensive to do post op work soo’.
Fillet’s technically get in the way and aren’t very useful. They’re just symantical cosmetic aesthetic accents is all. And if they’re being used very elaborately into the design, then they’re technically copouts for the geometry that should actually be there.
At some point the design should realize that the curvature probably should be alot more organic than some basic fillet radius transition.
Designers often limit themselves to think, ‘oh I’m a really good designer if I figure out how to get these fillets to work out’.
I used to play around with fillets alot in 2004-2008, then I discovered freeform surface modeling.
When you have the freedom to create any compound curvature organic geometry you can dream up, why would you bother to think of things as ‘oh that’s a fillet’ or ‘that needs to be perfect rolling ball true fillet’?
The question should be, does that edge need to be sharp or round? If it needs to be round or smooth then is it sharp? No burrs? K good no burrs. Cause the customer probably wont like burrs cutting their skin during normal use.
As long a the design intent calls for a 2.5D rectangular prism with 1FNR fillet and 1variable fillet then Rhino can do that easy not a problem.
On second thought, I’ve seen Rhino fail to create FNR’s 
poor Rhino 
I hope R8 or 9 won’t have this problem.
Well, that’s why GD’s&T’s are imperative, otherwise the tool maker will be left with too many infinitessimal interpretations of the design intent. And you might end up with different fillets or lack thereof.
Well, yes and no. You definitely want to remove anything up for erroneous interpretation, and the toolmaker needs every GD&T possible, otherwise you’ll end up with lots of scrap and lots of wasted money, etc.
A fair amount of tolerance is important. And please tell them “no burrs please” 