Sketch Fillet option, but no chamfer?

[LibertyMachine]

Doing a quick sketch, I see there is an option to put a fillet of any size on the corners of the sketch. No option for chamfer though, or is it hidden?

[philwmcintosh]

"I wonder why this is requested. What makes this a necessity as opposed to using the solid modeling chamfer tool?"

Modelled chamfers in A360 are great however right now I'm modelling a custom window mechanism (for large boats) so I'm working on a Layout sketch to determine the clearance I need for various parts as the window opens and closes. One of these parts is a telescopic gas spring and uses the over-centre principle to keep window closed. I need the end of the cylinder that is fitted to the window as close to the window as possible and need to use minimal clearances as everything swings through its motion/path. Both ends of the cylinder extend past the pivot point (i.e. have overhang) and are chamfered. I also need to work out the minimum cylinder length and also the required stroke length for the gas cylinder. Try doing this on a modelled part and see how long it takes. A layout sketch is way easier which is why I also believe the need for sketch chamfers is valid. Hope this helps explain why.

[Anonymous]

Some of us use Fusion for a multitude of different reasons, in the same day, the same person at the "control".

If someone hands me an already made piece made out of plastic .125in thick and wants it waterjet..and it has slots and a bend etc etc. Why would I 3d model this object for any reason? If the waterjet takes a basic .dxf file. Older jet also lets say.

So I have a tape measure and going as quick as possible cuz I have production work coming. If I can quickly use rectangle key, then use "slots" , and half way done but the part needs a .5 chamfer...now you want me to do the math? Why can't I use a chamfer tool like the Fillet, just click and type in .5???

This is speed and efficiency. I am not going to 3d model, or sketch and then extrude if I know the machine it is going to doesn't need it. It is a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

I personally find it dumbfounding there is no Chamfer tool in sketch. Since I couldn't find it, I googled for it and found this thread. Seems like such a simple thing to add and extremely useful. Dumbfounding!!!

[seth.madore]

I just learned to adapt and adjust. Once I got beyond the initial annoyance, I found that I actually didn't NEED it, but rather I was stuck in my old ways 🙂

[chrisplyler]

---

@jeff_strater wrote:

...we have a limited development team...

---

I accept the trade-off of slower development in exchange for a lower price (or free...try doing THAT with Solidworks). Doesn't mean the slower development is any less annoying. Heck, I don't even use Fusion to make money. I use it only for fun and learning and to participate in this forum. I've never actually developed a product using it, and probably never will. I'm in the construction business, using Revit primarily for building design and construction documentation. Fusion was just something new to learn for me. Mental exercise and entertainment, if you will.

And the slow development is still annoying. I mean, come on dude...how can environment color pallet changes be higher priority than Joints?

Chad (the stoner temp agency employee you guys call a development team) need somebody to ride his butt!

[Anonymous]

Don't reply with obtuse answers please as if you are the expert because AutoDesk deemed it so. Heck, I have seen guys on youtube draw models/parts completely backwards and take way more time given the knowns and unknowns. People may have preferences, but from a PROFESSIONAL standpoint and not a HOBBY standpoint, efficiency is key. I used Fusion because of this keep point...speed and ease of use.

This is a super simple command to do. If I could do this on a 2d, I could extrude the whole part....FINISHED as a 3d model to also send to a mill for machining.

Why would I go between sketching/ modeling just to do a simple chamfer? Each menu change or click of the mouse adds TIME. Time is money.

[chrisplyler]

Please don't reply with insulting responses just because whatever company you work for deemed you the insult expert.

Telling you what HE did (adapt) is not something that is "obtuse." Do you even know what words mean?

[Anonymous]

This is not an insult. If anything, I was pointing out how his reply could be taken as an insult. The "get over and learn how to adapt".

Then...it is an obtuse statement because it did not provide an intellectual response(professional answer) and could be taken as an insult to others, insinuating that others were obtuse. It was also overly broad. He does not say how he adapted. Meaning, it could be taken as a lie, and that he does not have a work around.

I feel I know what his work around was, which is what I alluded to in my post. So hence, I actually gave a response that anyone having done this as a CAREER would understand.

Others have commented with the same critique for how many years? In multiple threads, with upvotes. It is a problem based on what I previously outlined and proved with the picture.

Ps- Next time you should understand what the dictionary term is for a word you don't think the other knows how to use.

[LibertyMachine]

Discourse on these platforms must remain civil and free of personal attacks, otherwise threads (likely) will get deep-sixed. Let's be courteous to one another, this world has enough hell of it's own without us making more of it.

I'm putting my "customer" pants on for this, as that is what I still am at the end of the day. I run a full time machine shop and I do consulting support work for Autodesk in my "spare" time (haha, that really doesn't exist)

When I came to Fusion, I had been using MasterCAM, Esprit, SolidWorks and Autocad for the better part of 15 years. So naturally, my response to almost everything was "Software A" had this option, why doesn't it exist in Fusion. This was (as I view it now) a somewhat close-minded view, as it didn't really allow for the consideration of different methods of doing things. Over time, I learned to adjust my workflows and adapt myself to how things are in Fusion.

Is there room for improvement? Always. Is it the end of the world to make a solid model and then add a chamfer to it? Hell no. For Sketches, it's as simple as drawing a line, adding a couple dimensions and trimming off the excess if desired. So yeah, I adapted and found a suitable solution for the time being.

Would I still like to have the option for sketch chamfer? Sure, on occasion. But the frequency with which I find myself needing it is small enough that I've decided to pick bigger battles and spend my energy there 😉

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the thought out response. Yes, like you said there are different ways of doing things, just like I also stated.

I feel the point being missed by the Fusion Team is how many people find this little thing that is so simple  not being corrected(i am not a coder) and the fact that even yourself admitted it would be easier and faster.

You run a machine shop, if you aren't making chips you aren't making money. I use fusion because as I have blasted another software company....I can run circles around that software from a napkin drawing to toolpathing and ease of training! I have used Solidworks, Mastercam, BobCad, and Qcad. 

So yes I prefer civil discourse, but sometimes people get defensive when they know there is a shortcoming in their product. I think they need to make a non-cloud based version as well and they will rake in the money.

Off to make chips and hat tip to you.

[chrisplyler]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

This is not an insult. If anything, I was pointing out how his reply could be taken as an insult. The "get over and learn how to adapt".

---

Okay, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume that's a fair point that I had not considered.

Still, just on perception, his post did not SEEM insulting to me, and yours did. But I'm only a single data point of course.

[Anonymous]

Hey everyone,

I'm trying out Fusion 360 as a person with SolidWorks background, stuck at home during the pandemic and trying to do some freelance design on my weaksauce laptop lol. So, something like this software which doesn't demand much of the machine running it is a must, and I'm interested in adopting it moving forward so I could continue doing some work from a home / remote setting.

However, I see people mentioning that they learned to model differently to not need this feature, but I use it all the time and at somewhat of a loss on how to proceed. Do most of you extrude the sketch, then make the separate chamfer, for everything? That would make complex outlines bifurcated into two different places when you want to make edits...

Or is there a way you're incorporating this into your sketching and manually working around it in the sketch itself, so that the chamfer isn't a separate feature?

If anyone could elaborate on exactly how they're doing this, it would hopefully enlighten me. I see people posting who had a similar impression to what I currently have a few years ago, and are happy now... but I just don't get it. It seems like it would hinder my process a lot. But then I chamfer everything lol.

Thanks everyone : )

[chrisplyler]

It is almost always preferable to add fillets and chamfers as separate features towards the end of the modeling process.

[Anonymous]

Wow. Just wow.

Just learning Fusion, but based on how well it seems to do lots of other things, I can only believe the lack of chamfering is some kind of inside joke.

Really, Autodesk?

Is it the same people responsible for making sure paper coffee cups with lids on TV shows are always empty and massless?

[TrippyLighting]

@Anonymous you responded to @LibertyMachine's post.

Did you read this in his post ?

Discourse on these platforms must remain civil and free of personal attacks, otherwise threads (likely) will get deep-sixed. Let's be courteous to one another, this world has enough hell of it's own without us making more of it.

I suggest you do and then proceed with caution.

[Anonymous]

Double post

[Anonymous]

Andrew is the first sensible reply, I think. This is such an obvious oversight, and the lack of response when it was brought up Years ago made me realize this program just isn't worth my time.

I went with another alternative instead...

[Anonymous]

@Anonymous  - thanks for the note - what did you end up using?

[Anonymous]

Hi Peter - 

Not sure what you mean by either 1) something I "read in his post" (whose?) or 2) personal attacks  - again, I wasn't talking to someone specific, just Autodesk, in general.

Note that I replied to the original post because I don't see a way to tack on a thread reply that isn't specifically a reply to a forum member.

I'm sure it's obvious, but, apparently, it's been four years since this thread started. Chamfering is a 101-level drafting function; I think I probably learned it on my third day of drafting classes in high school. (Hand drafting...  😉 )

That it's still missing from sketching is... confusing. 

cheers

[TrippyLighting]

@Anonymous 

Your post shows as a reply to @LibertyMachine's post but I understand that this was likely more accidental.

Chamfering might be a 101 for sketch-based workflows, and some users in this thread have presented good explanations where it can be useful in a sketch. No argument from me on that!

But the matter of fact is that way too many people overuse sketch functions and forego proper 3D modeling techniques. 

That particularly seems to apply to people who started with 2D CAD software or like myself on a drawing board.

When the 1st 3D CAD software became available a lot of functions in the sketch were aimed and simply replacing 2D drawing functions. However, things have moved on.

The occasional chamfer and occasional fillet in a sketch, of course, aren't a problem and there are a number of cases where there is no sensible workaround for it. All too often, however, I see users trying to complete an entire component outline with 10 or 20 + fillets and/or chamfers in a single sketch.

In many cases, it is faster to create a simple sketch and apply fillets and chamfers to a solid instead of in the sketch. It also creates more reliable and performant designs, because we don't have to rely on a constantly re-evaluating sketch solver.

I also very much agree with @LibertyMachine's statemet that he simply adapted his workflows. I've yet to find a single tool that can do everything I want to do.  I've worked with SolidWorks since 1998. When I obtained a license for Alibre Design for my personal projects many years ago I had to adapt my workflow. When I started working with Fusion 360 I had to adapt my workflow. When I added ZW3D to my tool collection 2 years ago I had to adapt my workflow.

When I started with Blender 18 years ago I had to completely re-think my approach to 3D modeling.