Filleting an entire cube or four edges is no problem. The cushion (solid) edges do not want to fillet no matter what radius I dial in (0.19" preferred). Tried lots; suggestions appreciated.

Leonard

Hi Leonard, there are some small-sized defects in the model that you may not be aware of.

For example zooming in to this area here:




When you get in really close (use the "Area" from the view tools at the bottom of the viewport) you can see it is actually not smooth at all there, it has like a tiny 90 degree shelf:



So that's going to limit the fillet to be some tiny fraction of that little shelf's width.

It looks like this may be some residual error from cutting the current rounded corners in using something like a boolean? It looks like the cutting object was not completely aligned to the sides... I would actually suggest avoiding placing those larger rounded corners by booleans and instead using Fillet to round them off as well with a larger radius.

I might be able to tune up your model, I'll give it a try.

- Michael

Hi Leonard - attached here is a reconstructed version of your object (filename: Cushion_ctr_pipg2.3dm), I used a combination of "ShrinkTrimmedSrf", and then "untrim" on the 2 large sheets to get back to the original square-ended surfaces there, then drew in some lines and used Construct / Planar to cap off the sides.

So that results in a starting model like this (the attached one):




Now you can create the result you want with these steps:


Start by placing the large radius rounds in the corners - I would recommend just using Fillet for this part as well rather than attempting to boolean out a rounded corner. If you do the boolean you have to precisely align the cutting object and it will also be difficult to guarantee tangency in the result, your previous result was likely not entirely tangent in these areas, which will also tend to mess up further fillets along those areas as well.


So just select these 4 little edges like this:



And run Fillet, it looks like from your previous one you want a radius of something like 1.15 on these ones, that creates this for you:



Now select the entire object and run Fillet again and set your smaller radius of 0.19 and it will make this:



Does that handle what you need?

Also was the other one along side it a duplicate of this one, or was it different shaped?

You may want to double check my version to make sure I did not accidentally lengthen it or something like that when untrimming it and going back to the square corners.

- Michael

Michael,

Yep, I used a boole and the curve was too inboard, I guess.

Thanks for your tutorial. I used my copy and worked through it without a problem - except I hit a wrong key on my Mac, froze it and lost that file. I just repeated it and it looks great.

A workflow issue is the time consumed having to max. zoom in to connect points. Following your tutorial, I had this problem and I had to go in and find the culprit. Is it possible to add first priority sensitivity to lock onto the end point of the target and a lesser sensitivity to a sensitive spot not far from the end point? In this case, until I zoom way in, the two end points looked connected.

Once again, your workflow was much faster than what I thought was a fast workflow. Unfortunately, I often get bogged down hunting errant points.

I see the last V2 beta is up; I'll check that out.

Leonard

Hi Leonard, I'm glad that you got it set up now.

So yeah, even if you have larger sized rounded corners, try to think "Fillet" for those for doing those as well.


> Is it possible to add first priority sensitivity to lock onto
> the end point of the target and a lesser sensitivity to a
> sensitive spot not far from the end point?

Sorry, I can't quite follow exactly what this is about - could you possibly attach an screenshot or some kind of a drawing to help me understand which kind of end points you are referring to here?

Is this about drawing the 4 little connection lines between the corners of the 2 large surfaces?

When you want to draw a small line, you've just got to zoom in a ways until the points that you want to pick are not so very close together on the screen, there really is not any good substitute that I know of for that... If you don't want to zoom in by scrolling the mouse wheel you can use the Area zoom tool to go into a more specific area in one step.


> Unfortunately, I often get bogged down hunting errant points.

Possibly when you are placing the points you are not zoomed in enough to be able to see more clearly what you are snapping to - try to get in a habit of zooming in closer to your target areas when you initially draw things, and also make sure you have object snaps enabled when you are drawing, and pay attention to what is shown on the little labels that show up, like for example if you want to get an end, make sure you see that word "End" showing in the label. It speeds things up a lot if you can lock your lines into the correct spot right when they are first drawn.

If you are not zooming in and then using Reset to go back out again quite often, you are probably working too much on small details at too far out of a zoom level. Don't wait to get frustrated that it is hard to pick things - try to preemptively zoom in to work on stuff. Same thing can apply to selection as well as picking points.


- Michael

Hi Michael,

I learned quite a lot from your tut. Fillets instead of boole - it makes so much sense.

You are right about zooming. It is a matter of developing app-tailored workflow habits. No big deal.

A little more of what I was saying: I was not close in or far out but was able to draw two short "Perp" lines between corner points in one view, change to a second view and draw two more lines vs. zooming in four views to draw each of the four lines. Like the way you have developed the efficient-centric Moi the thinking here is, "It's the workflow, baby!" :-)

Anyway, the end of one short line found a hot spot *close* to the corner point end. I had to zoom way in to find it and reset that end point. I zoomed way, way, way in on another troubled short vertical line and never did see the missed connection. As a precaution, I took and reset both ends and that corrected that line.

The idea I was positing was to prioritize snap sensitivity so that the end points and mid point might be more sensitive than the hot points between the mid and ends. It seems every little "x", which at times there are many of them, has equal snap sensitivity. Reading your thoughts here, "That's not only impossible but it's a silly idea." ;-) BTW, having the "End" word pop up *is* terrific!

Coming from polygon modeling, I have adjusted quite a bit to Moi3D. As I learn more of the tools, tips and tricks, the adjustment will develop, too. With all this in mind, this chaise project has become my Moi learning project.

Leonard

Hi Leonard,



Yeah currently each of the little "x" points have equal weight and it is purely the one that is closest to your mouse that is targeted.

There some is priority in a different area though for the "on" or "onsrf" snaps - those only kick in if one of the "snaps based on one specific x,y,z point" was not targeted.

In the future I could maybe try to experiment with some different kind of weights for particular types (maybe just End and Cen with higher weight), but it is a sensitive area to mess with so definitely it is not the right time to mess around with that now right near the end of v2 development.

Thinking about it some seems like it could have a bad effect of essentially just totally disabling other snaps if they happened to be nearby an end point. That could be frustrating if you were actually wanting one of the other snaps than end and could no longer get it unless you zoomed way, way way in... That's probably the potential bad side effect.

The current way where just the closest point to your mouse taken is kind of more simple and sometimes there is less that can be messed up with side effects with a simple mechanism.

Right now your best bet is to pay close attention to the labels shown on those little tags - make sure you read them and verify the snap is actually the one you are looking for.

Or if you want you can disable certain kinds of snaps like turn off perp, and only leave end enabled, to do that use the little menu that pops up above the Object Snap button when you move your mouse over it. That's a way you can just completely disable some particular types of snaps if you don't want to have them pop up.

- Michael

Maybe one thing that could have some potential to reduce the side effects might be to only do more "weight" to End snap on the second pick after you had already picked an End snap for the first pick.

That could possibly help to avoid suppressing perp and tangent snaps too much.

Anyway I think there is some potential there for future experimentation but there is a pretty high risk factor of accidentally making other kinds of snap scenarios more difficult so not good to attempt right before release.

- Michael

Maybe it could be a choice - equal weight to all and greater weight to ends. A choice of "greater weight to all except ends" does not seem to make sense when there can be so many snap points in small area. Those do require zooming in.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to listen and respond. The tags are a great help and I will get comfortable with zooming.

Leonard

Hi Leonard, well you can actually make it set up to have end with greater weight right now, because you can set it so that the only snap enabled is End.

To do that, go to the little menu that pops up over the Object Snap button here:



When you click on that arrow, this menu will pop up:



Go to the one labeled End and right-click on it - when you do that all the other snaps will turn off and leave only End enabled:




Now when you move your mouse around, the only thing you will grab on to are Ends.

Go back there and right-click on End again to re-enable the other ones if you need them later.

That gives you some explicit control over which kind of snaps will be available.


A weighting effect could be good to experiment with in the future as well, but it may have a problem of it kind of "drowning out" other snaps without quite as much explicit control as this checkbox menu gives you.

- Michael

That is going to help and will be used! Great idea. I saw the triangle but thought that was for a future feature.

Thanks for the tip.

Leonard