> However, why wouldn't it work to apply a fillet function
> on the edges I've selected ? (as seen on the screenshoot)

In your last screenshot you mean?

For the model that looks like this? :



That one has a problem with the curved surface, in this area:



If you go in there and move some control points around you can see that the surface actually folds back over top of itself:





If you use that boolean technique that I wrote about, it will make a better model, and then every other edge in there should fillet, except not all 3 of them going into that one particular corner.

- Michael

> it's weird because I managed to get this kind of "triple" edges
> fillet in the bottom of the piece, but can't manage to get it done
> in the same way for the top.

Yeah that one is a different case which is handled - the main difference there is that the corner does not have to try and cross multiple other surfaces, the one that causes the problem has to kind of bend around and travel across more than one surface in the bending part...


> It might be something really cool to improve for users in v.3 :D

Unfortunately it may take longer than that for some things like new corner cases... Those are pretty hard.

I do hope to get at least some improvements to filleting for v3 though, but it depends on how much time is invested in it by the company that makes the geometry library that I use - the fillets in MoI come from a geometry library that I license, I did not code that part directly myself.

- Michael

ho okey, anyway thanks for your feedback ! It was a pleasure talking with you ;)
I'll let you know if things get better and well, let me know if in other versions of MoI you happen to solve that kind of problem !
I would be pleased to use MoI in my workflow if I get hired in some kind of Design company that would need to have a modler/render/designer guy ^^

Thanks again for all your responses ;)

Anthony

Hi Anthony and welcome to MoI :)

I always like a challenge and I always push MoI to find the best solution, hope you don't mind.
I've probably mentioned this before, but I always tend to start off modeling with simple geometric shapes, where possible of course, like arcs, circles and primitive solids, not only in MoI but in all 3d solid modelers, I feel the software has an easier time calculating stuff out and achieving what you want, like Michael has mentioned already, bigger is better, starting off with a nicer larger surface and trimming to shape is the way to go with NURBS.

Anyway, I usually take the solid modeling approach and use surfaces, curves and other solids to carve things out a bigger solid, like Michaels example here
I've attached a version of your model taking this approach and left all the entities that I used to create it, they are hidden, unfortunately it's in colour, V1 demo won't see the colour it's just easier to see what was used for what.
Is this what you were looking for? any questions, feel free.

Cheers

@Danny seems you have a very little blue glitch ;)

Hi danny !

Thanks for your enthusiasm ! It's a pleasure to get some external feedback and you apprently rock at modelling !
And all your mod matches quiet perfectly the "blue print" I joined, that's insane :D

However, as you told me to feel free to ask for anything : It would be great for me and for other users to see precisely the workflow you've used to build the "boiteaproblem" :D
I mean if you've got a bit of free time (I know it can be time consuming huhu) if you could take some screenshoot along the way it would be REALLY nice :D

PS: I guess you've used v.2 beta ? Because I've got the v.1 (...) ^^
EDIT: Pilou's right, what about the glitch ? Is that okey for rendering with Mental Ray back into 3dsmax for instance ?

This glitch for rendering is nothing ;) (not visible)
It was just for the perfection :D

Thank you Michael for providing explainations and examples for problems like these, I learn so much about modeling with MoI from these kinds of posts - especially since these are very common problems for a lot of the modeling I do.

If possible, please consider collecting up these tidbits - especially the GIFs and create perhaps a Troubleshooting / Best Practices wiki area or perhaps a section in the User's manual or a seperate manual on tips, troubleshooting and best practices. ;-)

NURBS modeling is IMO, way easier than SDS, BUT if you don't know how to troubleshoot your objects (especially the way you do), it still makes it hard to become successful creating the shapes you desire.

Posts like these go beyond teaching you how to use a particular function within MoI, they teach you solutions and techniques which a lot of times you just don't learn from reading the docs on the individual tools themselves...


-Will

I agree. And if I'm succesfull Ill make a full tutorial speaking about tips and tricks I've discovered throughout this post thanks to MoI users and it's creator ;)

.

Hi,
My solution to fileting issues to to try and remove the seame edge from the area that has problems. So MoI will produce the same result as the ViaCad Model if you can eliminate that seam edge in the top surface:



My method was to replace the point in the profile of the part. I could either "RebuildCurve" or "Add Point"



My question regarding "Add Point method, is how to get the point added to be the same distance from the point to be removed on both sides? I could, for this model just copy or mirror, but in the case of to different sides, I couldnt do that. Trying to keep both of those the same through the add point/remove point op. (The other side meaning the opposite side of the model)






Also, what is the best "position" for the 2 points added, to try to maintain the original curves shape?

If this is not clear question, let me know and I will illustrate better.

Thanks,
Burr

Also, in regards to the output looking just like the ViaCad one, looks like they may have a mechanism to ignore those inside surface boundries? I wonder if the geometry guy's have been looking at this? (Yeah right, Burr knows what they dont know) Anyway....So maybe if there is an explanation as to why ignoring those interior surface boundries is bad, then that situation would have the ViaCad filet'r fail? Or the hard part is writing the "ignore interior Surface boundries" part.

Hi Anthony,

> It would be great for me and for other
> users to see precisely the workflow
> you've used to build the "boiteaproblem" :D

No problem, as soon as I have a chance I'll post a few steps.

> Pilou's right, what about the glitch ?
> Is that okey for rendering with
> Mental Ray back into 3dsmax for instance ?

Looks like Pilou has answered that already, I was actually quite pleased that MoI got that result, otherwise I had to resort to low level modeling where you seperate the surfaces and start trimming and joining, which involves a pretty high degree of accuacy and time to get things to join up again, anyway, that area will be covered by the knurled ring as well so for rendering I don't think it will be an issue.

Cheers

Hi Will,

Actually, there is already a section in the wiki for that, it's the tutorials section here:
http://moi3d.com/wiki/Resources#Tutorials

That's essentially all that a tutorial is - an illustration of best practices and a solution to a specific modeling problem.

That tends to be the best way to illustrate things, because it just does not work very well to try and discuss the "best practices" in isolation, it tends to make more sense when you see them in action working on a particular model, which is a tutorial.

Over time I do intend to add additional tutorials, I hope I will be able to do some additional ones when I switch focus to documentation after the last v2 beta is complete.

- Michael

Hi Ed,



Yup, that is a good way of thinking about it.

It tends to be difficult for people who come from a background of polygon modeling to think in this way (initially at least), because trimming/cutting/boolean type operations do not really work well in a polygon modeler so they have trained themselves to avoid them at all costs.

In NURBS modeling booleans tend to be the #1 way of getting things done instead of something to avoid. So that's a pretty big shift for someone with that kind of background.

- Michael

Hi Burr,

> My question regarding "Add Point method, is how to
> get the point added to be the same distance from the
> point to be removed on both sides?

Sorry, I'm not sure if I totally understand what you are doing there, but there is an alternate mode for "Add point" which will kick in if you do not have the control points for the curve turned on.

When you have control points turned on, when you use "Add point", it will snap to points on the control polygon hull, this is the "Add control point" mode.

If you have control points turned off (or if you manage to find a spot on a curve that is not nearby a control point hull when they are turned on), then when you click on a curve it will insert a point in "Add knot" mode.

When you add a control point, the other control points of the curve remain in place, and the curve may shift in shape a bit.

When you add a knot, it is the reverse - the control points of the curve will shift around a bit but the curve's shape remains 100% identical to its previous shape.

So if you want to fuse segments together but maintain the shape closely, you can do that by adding knots to either side of the join point and then go in and delete the control point at the join, that should minimize changes in shape to the curve.

In the future I do expect to add a more direct way for fusing curves together into single segments.

- Michael

Hi Burr,

> Or the hard part is writing the "ignore interior Surface boundries" part.

Yeah, more or less it's this part - it's not particularly easy to pretend that 2 surfaces are just a single surface, each surface usually has a different UV parameter space layout to it and stuff like that, things that operate in parameter space are not easily adapted to span multiple surfaces just automatically, it takes special consideration to do it.

- Michael

Did I "add Knot"?....Not. Will I add Knot in the future?...No....NOT! :O (Sorry,. Couldnt resist)

Thanks again.

Hi Michael,

> I do hope to get at least some improvements to filleting
> for v3 though, but it depends on how much time is
> invested in it by the company that makes the geometry
> library that I use - the fillets in MoI come from a
> geometry library that I license, I did not code that
> part directly myself.

I had a look at Integrity ware and their white paper on filleting and it looks pretty capable, so they claim and show, is MoI eventualy going to implement most of these filleting features?
I'll have to try some of their examples as a test to see if I get the same result ;)

Cheers

Cool varieties !