Autodesk Inventor

[#1]

I agree about adding fillets last.  It gives you the most flexibility.  But in your latest screen caps, it looks like your 2nd slot ends exactly where your 1st slot begins.  I think that is forcing the program to include geometry from the 1st slot into the fillet operation.

Try adding fillets as a secondary extrusion operation, or, modify your sketch to include the fillets, or, make your 2nd slot not end at the same exact point as your 1st slot.  Maybe one of these suggestions will get you by your issue.

Stephen R.

[#2]

If you add the slot as a new, separate machining operation, that top face is already flat. I think you are missing the point that others and myself stated about how would you do the machining. Working in 3D is a mathematical operation, not a mechanical one.

If the slot was created as the first machining operation, it would have that radius. A second path would then be required to make the top edge flat.

[#3]

I know, that is why I explained about adding the slot second, and what I feel is an error in how the fillet gets calculated.

In your previous response, you said Hint... it mimics the machining process.  You kept asking me how I would do the machining.  So I told you how it would be machined, now you are saying its a mathematical operation, not a mechanical one.  I think you are contradicting yourself.

I suppose it's not really an error, just the way the software works.  I will have to learn to live with it.

[#4]

---

tims79 wrote:

I suppose it's not really an error, just the way the software works.  I will have to learn to live with it.

---

SolidWorks returns the same results.  Pro/E returns behavior you are after.

[#5]

Hi,

Thanks for submitting this case.

Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where a subjective decision has to be made by the modelling team over which solution to provide for an operation with multiple possibilities. When designing algorithms, we base these decisions on customer research and feedback, but unfortunately no one solution will suit every case.

I’ve spoken to the Fillet development team about this case, and they agree that we could do better here (an ideal might be to somehow provide a choice from both solutions). They asked for this case to be submitted as a defect so that this example can be examined further - machining technicalities aside, we would obviously still like to offer our users maximum freedom to explore shapes when creating their models. I've logged this as 1393252 in our defect tracking database.

Fortunately there are alternative workflows for your two examples to achieve the results you require; but if you encounter any models which can’t be worked-around, we would be very interesting in taking a look at these.

Thanks again for taking the time to submit this!

Jake

[#6]

Jake

You’re welcome for submitting the issue, and thank you for looking into it.  Your response is completely satisfactory to me.  I can see how this is sort of a “you say potato, I say potahto” kind of thing. 

There are ways of getting around this one, so I don’t think I will run across one that can’t be worked-around.  But if I do, I will try to pass it on.  I think the idea of having the option for either solution is a great idea.

[#7]

i get what you are saying fella, and fully agree with you. it is odd behaviour. It would annoy the hell out of me as well, especially since it doesn't show it in the preview. Its not only adding 'material' as you put it (even though an internal corner fillet does), it is creating a weird quirk.  easy to work around by shuffling the order features are created, but annoying nonetheless. You are choosing to fillet a selected edge, but INV is deciding to extend the fillet long another edge that hasn't been selected. i suppose its seeing it as a face to face fillet.