Fillet help - fillet only part of a face

[relopesfusion0]

Hello, I have encountered an annoying issue with filleting and could not solve it using fillet with rules or tweaking the sketch. before I go around creating a very convoluted workflow/hack, I though I´d ask the wiser here.

I am creating a piece of furniture and have two bodies that will come together to for a set of legs. They are separate pieces but get finished together. In this case, a round over.
one of the pieces however gets all of its edges selected when filleting. this produces a result that is far from what I am trying to achieve as the roundover should follow the design of both pieces together and not each individually. Moreover, I do not want to fillet where the leg touches the floor. There are vertices on the sketch in both points but it seems that fusion sees them as a seamless form and ignores any break, point or vertice I would expect to use as a "stop" point.
Images below.

Thank you for your wisdom 🙂

   

[jhackney1972]

Please attach your model.  If you do not know how to attach your Fusion 360 model follow these easy steps. Open the model in Fusion 360, select the File menu, then Export and save as a F3D or F3Z file to your hard drive. Then use the Attachments section, of a forum post, to attach it.

[etfrench]

Try adding the fillet in the sketch(es).

Do you just need the fillet for machining, if so, you may not need to add it. 

Try using Split Face or Split Body to stop the bottom fillet.

[relopesfusion0]

here is the model with the fillet wrongfully applied.

[relopesfusion0]

thanks John, just uploaded.

[relopesfusion0]

I am not sure what you mean adding the fillet in the sketch @etfrench .
I need the fillet for more than machining as I am going to produce cad drawings of it and it is important to illustrate the roundover. Also, for visualization, it will look quite different when rendered.
As for using split. I imagine I can do something like that or even introduce a very small `kink` on the sketch so I can partially select. While that would probably work, it is the clean solution I am hoping for, so saving that for last resort 🙂

[etfrench]

I should have deleted the sketch part😁  Your file didn't attach.

[relopesfusion0]

second try is the charm. attached now (i hope)

[relopesfusion0]

😫
trying again

[jhackney1972]

I am not totally sure how you want the fillet applied to the gray piece, I just guessed, but the wood colored piece I am sure you are looking to "uncheck" the Tangent Chain option when you select the path.  This will allow you to just select the edges you want.  Although a faster way is to leave it on, let it select all the edges and then use the "Ctrl" (on Windows) "Command" (on MAC) and deselect the edges you do not want.  My guess of the model is attached.

[matthewZYM62]

How about this.

[relopesfusion0]

Thanks @jhackney1972 , deselecting tangent chain helped. It solved the problem at the foot level.
At the joint between the two parts I am starting to think that the problem may not be easily solvable or possible.

I am trying to do the round over right after I create the component and while it makes sense from a digital workflow perspective, they are two bodies and I need to round them over as one.
An alternative would be to follow a production line approach and have a "finishing" routine at the end of my project where I combine join the two pieces (equal to glueing them in the real world) and THEN round them over as one (as I will in the real world). The problem then is that if I combine them I am creating a new, solid body and the joinery and wood direction are lost.
The closest to doing this I can imagine would be to create a rigid group and be able to fillet that as one. I do not think this is possible.
For the record I was able to get close to the visual result by using a combination of split -patch - split but it has left issues that do not allow me to easily recombine things as one. Moreover, this looks like an ugly workaround so not keen on stating this as a good solution.
I am uploading this experiment. take a look at where little (right) leg meets big leg. My patch job is on the top bit of the joinery.

[davebYYPCU]

I don’t have access to your file atm.

you are so close.  The fillet on the inside corners will work on the combined body.

Then you split body with the original outline.  To return to two pieces, as machined.

Might help....

[TrippyLighting]

@Phil.E @jeff_strater I thought I had figured out the geometry and had a solution for this.

However, it seems the kernel is not going to have any of this.

It fails if I just us the revolve tools with the cut option and also when I create solid bodies to be combine-cut.

Not exactly what I would have expected for this rather simple task!

Edit: My usual "workarund"  with the surfacing tools also utterly fails. The kernels appears to have a real problem creating a trimmed surface form the revolved geometry!

[TrippyLighting]

@jeff_strater @Phil.E I only see thins behavior if ai make a fill 360 degree revolve. It works fine if I only use a partial revolve.

@relopesfusion0 Now that I know how to model this, I am wondering how you propose to manufacture this. Using the patch tool - and most definitely the way you used the patch tool - will not create geometry accurately reflcting an edge created with a round-over bit.

This is much more manufacturable and the radii with the arrows should be at minimum be the radius of the bearing of the round over bit, ideally a bit larger.

[Phil.E]

One reason this seems like an ugly workaround is that not many people use fillet blends that must blend two separate bodies this way.

What about modeling it as one body and then splitting it up?

Since the workflow in the model is intentionally not showing the real world workflow (rounding all the edges after assembly), is there a compelling reason for this like renderings? Just curious, because I use derive workflows to show assemblies and parts that have to go thru processes. Like castings that get machined, for example. The casting design is derived into a new design for the machining. I understand the comment about wood grain direction, but is that just for images?

[relopesfusion0]

hey @matthewZYM62 I like this!
it is close to what would happen in the workshop, with a final pass on the router with a round-over bit.
I would have to have multiple paths with multiple profiles if the passes are not continuous (so to not round over the feet for example).
it also highlights a real life issue, in which it is not easily doing smooth cornering. In real life I may need to leave some additional material to be removed with the router so to have a smooth transition from the small leg to the big one.
All said, it respects the parts as separate entities.

Thanks for that!

[relopesfusion0]

Thanks Peter, this is definitely closest visually. The part is not quite what is designed but that could mean I need to tweak my design. My hesitation is the same as before with this in that I have to go through split and join operations which feels a bit convoluted and does away with the tenon joinery in the process (Ican always re-build it).
What @matthewZYM62 came up with is what is closest to the process in the workshop. Maybe fillets were the wrong option to start with?
I also want to thank everyone. I have learned a ton in the last 24h!

[relopesfusion0]

You´re correct. applying what is a finish step early may not be the best thing here. I am curious about what you said about derived designs for that. Sounds like a v neat way of looking and organizing things. Another one for the list to learn.
About designing the body as one, again, it would not help documenting the project and ultimately it feels like I am working backwards in terms of process. Put simply, rounding over is a finish, optional, one can change his mind and chamfer, or nothing. I am coming to the conclusion that this has to happen at the end and fillet may not be my silver bullet. Once again, your mention of derived designs seem the next step in this thinking.
Cheers!

[TrippyLighting]

---

h@relopesfusion0 wrote:

...
What @matthewZYM62 came up with is what is closest to the process in the workshop. 

---

Really, is it?

The router bits in my shop do not create sharp corners like this. Only the chisels do 😉

There is another design flaw in your leg assembly that surprisingly no one has pointed out yet. Any idea what I am talking about?