You keep trying to manufacture a false narrative. You should probably put more energy into learning how to create fillets with solid tools since you have very little understanding how to do so.
I also recommend you learn how to translate .iges/.step formats from one program to another.
I’m not currently complaining about the “edges pulled away” behavior, since I now understand better why it happens – until recently I had a false understanding, but B-rep’s data makes it more clear now.
Eventually I plan to help the forum isolate various clear and concise examples where Rhino fails to make fillets in particular scenarios, and it’s already underway, as others have already demonstrated.
I’ve yet to see any clear and concise examples on your part however. Am I missing something?
Yet you don’t seem to know how to successfully implement the solid tools, as you repeatedly complain about them here.
I already have the knowledge and experience to do so on my own, but don’t let that stop you – point me in the direction of your explicative examples you have shown where?
Are there any clear and concise examples you’ve provided them in this thread or any other thread on this matter?
Apparently you are only able to fillet two surfaces at a time with your workflows, because you don’t know how utilize the solid tools very well. I could probably help you with that, but you’re not interested.
There’s major benefits in knowing how to use the fillet edge tool, for example – you should practice using it more until you learn how to actually make fillets better.
Also this micro surface doesn’t have a corresponding edge in the right spot,and also appears to go to a point or have a zero-length side – which makes things harder on Rhino algos to handle – imo.
No it is you that can’t successfully implement the solid tools. Nobody can, because they don’t work.
First of all the whole idea of making edges so that they can be filleted is brain-dead stupid.
Users who want to use filletedge often waste an enormous amount of time creating the edges and when they get done find out the filleting doesn’t work. And even if by chance they model something simple and they get lucky and Filletedge does work the edges that they spent so much time fussing over get wiped out.
Here is one image that you posted complaining about Filletedge failing.
Notice that the user asks for fillets on 4 edges and gets 4 fillets with a big hole in the middle. The part being modeled is ruined.
Making a solid and thinking that helps you get closer to a correct fillet solution is dumb.
The intelligent way to view this modeling exercise is as 2 intersecting polysurfaces connected by a series of fillets. Like this:
This file shows how I would model Mitch’s 4corner fillet challenge.
Exactly. There are at least 2 more solutions to this particular case.
P.S.: I noticed that in your 3d model you cheated a bit by making one of the fillets 6 mm instead of 5 mm like the others. That’s because Rhino fails to make a fillet surface if that particular fillet is also 5 mm. I will show you how to easily fix that in a video tutorial soon. I often use that technique in similar challenging situations, such like this one:
I don’t agree, but you’re bold angle is potentially getting to a valid point. It is frustrating from time to time when, as a user, I have to regenerate the edges just to make a fillet – especially when all I want to do is redo one I already did, or change one / edit one. While there seems to be a new edit option, I’m not to keen on how well it works or not.
Yeah I’m quite familiar with that. It’s always been a part of those big hurdles.
ahhh, I see, yes this is a very good point interesting way of putting it, very true – unless the user “untrims” everything very time consuming and can lead to a can of worms per say.
hmmm yeah not sure if I copied that image and pasted it yet to address a point. But I wouldn’t complain about fillet edge while using that particular image, cause doesn’t appear to be a solid object – although I guess the object doesn’t have to be solid lol but might have an effect. I’ll try looking into it.
Yeah I noticed that. It almost looks like the fillet was done 2-surfaces-at-a-time or something idk.
hmmm yeah I’ll need to put some time into this “modeling exercise” to test some theories.
I’ll need to check it out, I think I came across it the other day.
it is a known limitation that rhinos filletEdge has a problem, if a Face has to be modified / trimmed, that is not connected to the initial edge that got choosen. I called it “surface near edge” - see also:
For some reason the distance between the surface edges at the end of the video was not perfect 0,0000000. Prior making the video I made a quick try and the distance was perfect. Maybe during the next try I did some wrong splitting of the fillet surfaces with their isocurves slightly off the proper place, this is why I end up with some deviation at the end.
Just wanted to point something out to everyone. Solidworks has 100% Surface modeling like Rhino. This screen shot shows two models with the exact same fillet done to both the Surface and Solid body.
Ok now back to our regularly scheduled programming… aka why hasn’t Rhino’s filleting gotten the luv and attention we all think it needs? Reading through the post from the beginning is a whoot. While, yes issues have been addressed, by far some of the tools in Rhino, as tried and true as they are, could use for some much needed TLC. Filleting is something that is about as universal as the command line. this is something… and I’m just guessing, at least 60% of users use and that would easily jump to 90% if the functionality actually became more robust in it’s capabilities.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the manual approach to filleting is not able to achieve some amazing results, it would be nice to just see some TLC given to such a base level of modeling.
I checked the quality, and I agree. But in my case, most of the time this is feasible. I hope there is a choice in which I can choose the mediocre quality at this level for the sake of time.
Here @ Rhino_Bulgaria took minutes to clean this. It’s just too unrealistic.
I think it makes a big difference wether we’re talking about some simple mechanical part without a lot of aesthetic requirements - then i think the Fusion360 Solution is a nice result for very little effort.
(and bettern then just ending with a hole / gap as rhino s _filletEdge)
if we re talking about a highly aesthetic part - let s say a watch - then the design of the surfaces should already be aware of the fillet.
with this in mind - this is my favourite solution:
That looks nice, but the picture says you asked for a "constant radius " “rolling ball” fillet and that is not even close. If in Fusion, you cannot a make a true constant radius rolling ball fillet in the very simple case of 4 intersecting planes, then that is not a very good CAD program.
Rhino can make constant radius rolling ball fillets that are as good or better than any other CAD program, but yes the process is tedious and painstaking. It requires the user to do a lot of work that should be done by the program. It is ridiculous that the Rhino user is expected to be smarter than the Rhino developers.
True fillets are used in industry because their fast, reliable and easy to edit and they are defined the same by all programs. With True Fillets new features can be added and new fillets used to connect that to the main body with ease. Trying to run additional fillets over the fusion patch is very likely to cause problems.
As somebody who models mechanical parts I can tell you its bad solution because its a dead end solution. True fillets are robust and allow for more features with more fillets to be added easily.
Creating surfaces like that on mechanical parts is like throwing gravel in the gears, it just makes it difficult to proceed. Mechanical parts often have lots of overlapping fillets and creating surfaces where the internal curvature that is all over the place will make creating a true fillet solution impossible.
In the below image all the base surfaces are either planes or cones or cylinders or spheres everything else is rolling ball fillet surfaces.
I agree. I never I understood the adoration to VSR. It was an ok package with some nice tool, especially for CO editing, but their fillets were nasty AF.
by making one of the fillets 6 mm instead of 5 mm like the others. That’s because Rhino fails to make a fillet surface if that particular fillet is also 5 mm. I will show you how to easily fix that in a video tutorial soon. I often use that technique in similar challenging situations, such like this one:
interesting way of putting it, very true – unless the user “untrims” everything 
very time consuming and can lead to a can of worms per say.
I’m not sure if I came across them yet…
