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?

[Anonymous]

If there were a compelling reason not to have it, I might agree.

But all I see is comments about the "proper" way to chamfer, as if people only use it for breaking corners on the edges of boxes or something. I use the feature when sketching as a huge timesaver for creating all sorts of complicated shapes, and not having it in sketch was baffling. I could re-learn my workflow, or go through many additional sketching steps to create it manually... but I'd rather just use a software package that has the basic functionality I'm looking for, to be honest.

I also see a lot of comments about 2D drafting. I only ever started with 3D (I'm in my early thirties) and again this totally misses the mark of what I was trying to do with it.

Andrew, if I can figure out a way to PM you, I will, but would rather not advertise alternatives in this thread despite my obvious disappointment with Fusion 360 (and to be honest, moreso with the absolute lack of openness in these replies. It's in competition with a lot of things out there... telling people they're "doing it wrong" isn't the best way to support the platform for sure...).

[TrippyLighting]

If you hover over the user name a little window pops us allowing you to send a private message to a user.

Some users have private messaging disabled, however.

 

[Anonymous]

I like how some people think it is faster or easier to now rotate your solid model to the proper corner to click on it, make sure it is highlighted and not the line next to it, to then chamfer, rotate to the other corner, and repeat.

Or ya know, just do it in sketch and save time.

Also, you want me to extrude 16 gauge sheet metal and try and click on that corner...that sounds like fun.

At this point it has to be an inside joke. 

PS- I will counter point anyone saying I am being harsh or negative. I have applauded this software on its ease of learning(use)  and the speed at which I can draw compared to other programs. Just fix the simple things and focus on the complicated later for the sake of everything holy

[geraldft]

Interesting how much trouble some will go to, writing virtual essays on why we don't need a useful tool and how we should all change the way we think and do things.  I just wish someone would put in a little time and add the feature, and do away with all the argument.  I expect it's probably just a matter of adapting one of the other tools like fillet.  Fusion is a program where it seems there is constant development expanding it, whereas less has changed at the bottom...

[chrisplyler]

When you have the chamfer or fillet tool open, something pretty neat happens. You are able to select edges that are on the other side, right through the solid body, even if you can't see them until you get your mouse close enough. AND you are able to select MULTIPLE edges on which to apply the effect.

And even if you couldn't, yeah, it's still faster to apply one, orbit the model, apply another, etc., etc., etc., than it is to  put them accurately into a sketch.

Plus, what if you need fillets or chamfers on edges that are originate from the sketch lines, as shown in the picture below? How are you going to put those in the sketch? (PS - I did all eight of those edges with one use of the fillet tool and no model orbiting.)

[TrippyLighting]

---

@geraldft wrote:

Interesting how much trouble some will go to, writing virtual essays on why we don't need a useful tool and how we should all change the way we think and do things.  

---

I've stated at least twice in this thread that this is a useful feature. That does not invalidate the fact that a lot of users (but obviously not all) are better advised to use the techniques I've already described. These Techniques are not unique to Fusion 360. They apply to most modern parametric CAD systems.

[Anonymous]

Your example is literally what I said - breaking the corners on a box. And, in this instance, and on the edges that originate from it, of course your workflow makes sense.

But you're ignoring all the other uses for this feature, and that's what is so frustrating to me. AcrylicCadGuy mentioned he wants to use it for sheet metal profiles. I hadn't even thought of that one when running into this issue (although in hindsight, I've also used it for that in other software) but it's obvious that it would be helpful for sketching sheet metal designs.

For myself, I had to model something to be injection molded with some complex geometry to avoid any undercuts. Having to only use chamfers as a separate feature when sketching would have been a nightmare for me.

Chamfering making sense as a separate feature in one instance (or even many) does not mean it is not a useful tool to have in sketch. I cannot believe it has not been implemented in the 4 years since this thread was created : (. That in itself is the biggest issue to me... when I encounter something lacking at the very start like that, it doesn't make me want to invest all the energy into switching to a platform that seemingly isn't having its base functionality updated.

[geraldft]

Peter.  No-one says it's not a useful thing in 3d modelling, but I would really like it in sketch too...  it still seems odd that it is missing...

[Anonymous]

The picture above is literally the example I said: breaking the corners on a box. For this, and for the edges created from it, chamfer as a separate feature makes sense.

But for other things, like sheet metal sketching as AcrylicCadGuy mentioned, or in my case making some complex geometry to avoid undercuts on an injection molded part, it does Not make sense.

A basic instance of it not being useful, does not invalidate its usefulness for many other things...

[davebYYPCU]

You Sir, hit that nail right on the head, 

All 2d profile cutters, will receive a huge efficiency benefit, when implemented.

For those who are not using 2d profile cutters, you are not aware of the magnitude of that benefit.

For the lack of a sketch Chamfer Tool

we are being told to develope a 3d Object to remove material that would not be there if the  Tool existed.  Unfortunately that’s 21st century logic right there.

I am not holding my breath.

[rkward]

And 4 years later it still doesn't exist.  I'm only here as an AutoCAD user of many decades expecting to find ALL of the same commands when working not only in a 3D space but also 2D.  I'm not sure why the reluctance to add this, but please do.  Yes, there are other ways to do it (in the 3D space) but that was not intuitive at first.  I ended up using it since there was nothing else.  The idea is to add the features in a way that users can find them without having to search endlessly for them within the UI or on forums only to find out they are hard to find, don't exist, or in this case, are just being ignored.

[g-andresen]

Hi,

Many users have even more wishes.
Which criteria can be used to select them for implementation?

günther

[rkward]

As a test engineer and someone who has written their fair share of software, they just assign it to someone.  I'm sure there is a team larger than 1 working on this product.   I would suggest that they spend less time on "experience" features and more time on productivity features.  Granted both are important, but the average user is looking for ways to put their thoughts (or someone else's) together.  Besides, it's not like they have to write these functions from scratch, they have it in all the previous versions of AutoCAD and Inventor.  I don't want to come across as a grumpy old man oversimplifying this, I do very much enjoy using Fusion 360 and have a long way to go in become more proficient with it.  But like with all software there is a learning curve.  I just found it surprising that fillet existed and chamfer did not.

[geraldft]

rkward.  Totally with you.  Perhaps I too are of a dying breed who value the basics ahead complexity.  I'm sure there are a thousand fancy functions they are dreaming of, but it would be so helpful just to deal with the simple stuff first?...

[Anonymous]

"Many users have even more wishes.
Which criteria can be used to select them for implementation?"

As others have noted, and what brought me here, is the process of planning and drawing in 2D, with very, very strong emphasis on planning.

I think of it this way: In regard to evaluating what should be included as a function of this software, it should start with basic drafting functions, ie those operations necessary should one be starting with (and possibly whose only intent) is to draft a 2D document. Chamfering is, without any ambiguity, one of those operations, regardless of whether there are workarounds. There are always workarounds.

In other words, if you would draw it by hand, on paper, you should be able to do the same thing digitally (to a point, of course).

[chrisplyler]

---

@rkward wrote:

As a test engineer and someone who has written their fair share of software, they just assign it to someone.  I'm sure there is a team larger than 1 working on this product.   I would suggest that they spend less time on "experience" features and more time on productivity features.  Granted both are important, but the average user is looking for ways to put their thoughts (or someone else's) together.  Besides, it's not like they have to write these functions from scratch, they have it in all the previous versions of AutoCAD and Inventor.  I don't want to come across as a grumpy old man oversimplifying this, I do very much enjoy using Fusion 360 and have a long way to go in become more proficient with it.  But like with all software there is a learning curve.  I just found it surprising that fillet existed and chamfer did not.

---

AHA! I now realize why some of us have bickered in this thread. Some of us think AD has more than one person working on product development as a programmer. I don't think this is the case.

I think they have one part-time, temp agency guy named Chad. Chad is a stoner that's usually late to work, sneaks out early, and spends most of the time he is at work in the break room.

So those team members responsible for deciding WHAT to implement (there are a whole boat load of these) finally decide on a feature. Then they write a cryptic description of that feature onto a yellow sticky note. Then they crumple it up. Then they throw it in the break room.

Later, at about 10:45a, Chad comes in, and may or may not notice or care about any crumpled up sticky notes he happens upon. If he DOES see one, and decides to read it, he then takes it back to his cubicle and puts it in the small stack he's started. Then he buckles down and gets to work. For about fifteen minutes. Then he sneaks out of the building to the private courtyard and has half a joint. Then he comes back in and tries to remember where he left off. Then the clock hits 2:15p and he grabs his Hello Kitty back-pack and goes home.

[Anonymous]

Kids these days, hm?

[rkward]

There's a "Chad" everywhere but usually things don't work out for him long term.

[Anonymous]

Over four years and this extremely basic feature has been ignored.

Its almost kind of amazing how Autodesk refuses to implement this after *four years* of development but the entire GUI changes about once a year.

[Anonymous]

It is amazing. It seems some at Autodesk have their own idea on how users should build their models. This topic continues to come up so many of us would use a chamfer sketch tool if it were there. It seems such a simple add.