Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.
Showing results for
Show only
|
Search instead for
Did you mean:
This page has been translated for your convenience with an automatic translation service. This is not an official translation and may contain errors and inaccurate translations. Autodesk does not warrant, either expressly or implied, the accuracy, reliability or completeness of the information translated by the machine translation service and will not be liable for damages or losses caused by the trust placed in the translation service.Translate
Being able to switch distance direction in the chamfer tool..
dpar15 brought this to my attention, you can't switch the direction in the chamfer tool when using the distance and angle. I'm sure a lot of people need this. I know I am one of them. I know there are work arounds but it wastes time.
I'm certainly in agreement that it would be more convenient to have the ability to quickly change direction from a speed of workflow perspective, however with the three provided chamfer options available (equal distance, distance and angle, two distances) I don't understand where the tool is not usable. Can you give an example of such a situation?
Im having issues with Fusion uploading pictures at the moment so ill explain.
Lets say I have a cylinder with a diameter of .75" and length of 3". The print calls out a .1" chamfer at 60 degrees. The length call out is along the cylinder axis.
In fusion, the distance direction is fixed, it will only allow the distance to be along the radius of the part.
The Chamfer in both of those examples were modeled using the "Distance and Angle" Chamfer type, using the values of .1" for Distance and 60º for Angle. Is this the desired output you're seeking?
I just spent 1.5 hours to figure out how to make the same chamfer for 10 holes on the same face and no luck! looks like some holes trying to build chamfer on other axis and i need non proportional chamfer and just cannot do it.
I USE TO DO THIS IN SOLIDWORKS IN 5 SECOND!!! Here i spent 1.5hrs and still have no clue how to modify already created chamfer and how to change axis while making it. RIDICULOUS!!!!
I cannot believe that this is software issue but looks like it and i'm in awe off Fusion team reacting on this thread.
The only reason this is frustrating is because we’re used to a feature/workflow within another product. In my case, it’s Solidworks, which brought me to this thread to begin with. Solidworks was 10x the cost of Fusion, I simply can not justify freaking out over something that’s still achievable via an alternate workflow in a product that saves this much money. Furthermore, software is incredibly hard to establish IP rights for, and sometimes certain features are protected by patent law. As a designer/engineer it’s our jobs to come up with solutions to problems, to think differently. Apply the same philosophy to this software and all will be well.
@kalebreinhart , blaming the user also does not help resolve the issue and claiming that this 'feature' is somehow Solidworks' IP is crazy. OnShape (also an inexpensive option to Solidworks) has a chamfer tool that performs this function. Using Fusion360, it is not a trivial operation to get the campfer to go in the direction we want and it is counter intuitive that if we want this alternate operation we need to break out the college trig books. Much of the frustration here is that there has been no communication from the development team on this topic for quite sometime.
@Anonymous I didn't blame anyone or claim facts, I'm simply providing an alternate way of looking at the situation as "by design" (for whatever reason) rather than "broken". It wouldn't surprise me if there were IP protection on such a feature, especially from Dassault Systemes who has hundreds of patents granted for the way their software functions, including: "Method and device for indicating a direction - DE2431932A1", "Determining a geometrical CAD operation - EP2521058A1", even "Selection navigator - EP1035464A2" using a hierarchical tree. Typically utilization of features that fall under IP protection require licensing or agreements to be made for using those features in other work, and given that OnShape was created by Jon Hirschtick, the founder of SolidWorks, that may be the case...Or not.. Either way, there's more effective ways to express desire for a feature than throwing a fit..
I don't think it's "by design" as there's no obvious logic to which faces it measures on.
I'm might be a little off on the details, since I first ran into this 3ish years ago when I posted on this thread, but IIRC I was just modelling a hold-down for my milling machine.
Seems like it would be trivial to make an accurate drawing, since it's basically just a bar with a slot in it. One flat face, and chamfered on the other 3 faces at the business end.
IIRC It had a 30 degree chamfer 10mm long. so I selected the 3 edges, assuming that they would all chamfer at the distance from the plane that all 3 edges were on. One of the edges was chamfered as expected, but then another one went took the distance on the other intersecting face.
I think I ended up doing it with 3 separate chamfer operations, each working on a different face, and delending if they went the correct direction or not, I would have to do the trig to calculate the other direction and use it instead,
So, it's not like it's a big deal to work around it, but then later on when you're adjusting your design and want to increase the chamfer by 2mm, you need to edit all 3 operations, etc.
@nick.wimpney That's a great example to suggest why this feature should be considered for implementation. Feedback that tells a user story in a non-hostile manner is a great contribution.
I think people are just understandably frustrated by the fact that what seems like an obvious design bug in a fairly fundamental feature has been sitting untouched for 4.5 years.
If you look through the thread, there have been some very clear explanations, including an animation from guenther.andresen clearly demonstrating it in action.
Also suggestions that people are doing it wrong, and that it's not a bug are kind of presumptuous.
You said "The only reason this is frustrating is because we’re used to a feature/workflow within another product."
I think everyone who has run into this is not annoyed by the fact that it doesn't work like xxx other product, but simply that it doesn't work logically, or even consistently. I've got very little experience with any other cad software, and it was still pretty clearly broken to my eyes.
There will never be a fix to bug that doesn’t exist.
With the available options you can achieve any chamfer
Learn how to communicate effectively to achieve what you want.
You're implying that this bug doesn't exist. If you read the thread, you'll see examples already given where it certainly looks like a bug to me, and I assume most other users who have gone through the trouble to search the forums for the bug they experienced, and all ended up in the same place.
Your second assertion implies that the possibility to get the same end result is an excuse for the weird behaviour. IMO, if I need to bring up a calculator and do some trig to calculate the length of an adjacent edge in the seemingly random instances when it decides to care about a different edge than I do, It's pretty clearly wrong.
And, while the last few comments haven't been super polite or calm about it. I think they did pretty clearly explain what they wanted. No, they didn't go into a detailed rehash of what's already been clearly stated earlier in the thread, but I think that's a little unnecessary at this point.
I doubt anyone is really paying attention who has any influence on the matter, or it would have been fixed years ago, but the frustration is definitely understandable, even if it's not particularly productive.
I’ve been following this thread for a couple years now, given how there has been minimal if any feedback from Autodesk, either Autodesk genuinely doesn’t care or they are somehow not being notified?
In which case we should consider alternative methods to get a response from them.
