Smooth blend between different bodies

[Anonymous]

Hi all

I'm a newbie trying to create a complicated model. I couldn't get what I needed in the Sculpt workspace so I created different bodies instead. Now, I need to join them in a way that achieves a smooth transition but I can't find a way to do it.

I am prone to finding complicated ways to solve simple problems so please feel free to tell me I'm doing it completely wrong.

What I'm trying to achieve can be seen in the two attached photos (side view and top view). I created different bodies for the shapes I wanted and now can't join them together smoothly. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

Here is a link to the model I'm working on https://a360.co/2pbmPni

Thanks in advance for your help.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

Rule of thumb: Don't use tools like spheres in the model workspace.

Unless you've sketched everything (even the part you are not extruding but placing a sphere) you just could extrude the part and than fillet it later. This should solve your problem because it should result in one body.

[mavigogun]

---

@lichtzeichenanlage wrote:

Rule of thumb: Don't use tools like spheres in the model workspace.

I guess Wilko is referring to primitives geometry, such as Box, Cylinder, Sphere, etc- but then fails to provide the critical "why". As is, a bit like saying "don't wear green in Spring" (but I LIKE green and Spring- why not combine them?   Good question, no?)

Unless you've sketched everything (even the part you are not extruding but placing a sphere) you just could extrude the part and than fillet it later. This should solve your problem because it should result in one body.

---

 I couldn't make heads or tails of that; even rotated the words sideways- nope, no help.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

The only fail I can see in this thread is the post from @mavigogun. From the first to the last line he has written I just see a collection of words. Ahhh - now I understand. He didn't downloaded the project. Such a lazy boy. 

---

@mavigogun wrote:

---

@lichtzeichenanlage wrote:

Rule of thumb: Don't use tools like spheres in the model workspace.

I guess Wilko is referring to primitives geometry, such as Box, Cylinder, Sphere, etc- but then fails to provide the critical "why". As is, a bit like saying "don't wear green in Spring" (but I LIKE green and Spring- why not combine them?   Good question, no?)

Unless you've sketched everything (even the part you are not extruding but placing a sphere) you just could extrude the part and than fillet it later. This should solve your problem because it should result in one body.

---

 I couldn't make heads or tails of that; even rotated the words sideways- nope, no help.

---

[Anonymous]

Thanks all

In the example I posted, I used a sphere (which I now know isn't the best idea). However, I've also tried sketches/revolves/extrudes etc in the patch/model environments as well as several abortive attempts in the sculpt environment.

Let me rephrase the question: If you were tasked with creating body such as this, how would you go about it?

Thanks.

[mavigogun]

A few thoughts here, Simon.      First, use the Photos tool at the top of the posting window to include images directly in your post- it removes a step for would-be helpers and allow your words to be compared to your images simultaneously; take a screenshot and include it along with the other references and readers will have the full narrative, all in one place.

The shape IS complex; if you have a degree of flexibility in the precision of the forms, Sculpt may still be the ideal workspace to create this part using the the existing geometry you've already created.    Pull and Match in the Sculpt workspace may be used to Snap Vertices to target geometry- such as what you've already modeled.   In addition, in the Edit Form dialog, the  Object Snap option will likewise relocate Vertices, Edges, or Faces in relation to targeted geometry.    So, you create the general organic form, then Snap to those referenced elements to conform to their character.   Less is more int Sculpt land- so start with less divisions than the final design might require until you have the gross form in place; delete and replace sections to dispense with unwanted tension/contour complexity; Subdivide/Add Vertices/Edges as necessary to prove resolution around critical Snapped to geometry.

Using Sculpt this way requires familiarity with the tool only acquired through use.   If you are open to a degree of deviation and have the time to experiment, this form might provide a good learning opportunity.

The alternative is the Patch workspace, where you might use 3D sketches to create a series of Lofts; this method allow for a great deal of control, but may prove time consuming to produce some features incidentally created in the Sculpt workspace.   I favor Lofting when fidelity to design is paramount- such as the contours of practical aircraft surfaces.

Often as not, integrating Fusion's work spaces with a hybrid approach may provide the best workflow- here a Primitive Geometry, there a Loft, all resolved by a net thrown over top and Pulled together in the Sculpt workspace.

[mavigogun]

Wilko, clearly your feelings were hurt- my apologies, I was indelicate.  That said, could you clarify your design ideas pointed to in my offending post?   I suspect they might be helpful, once understood.

[TrippyLighting]

---

@lichtzeichenanlage wrote:

Rule of thumb: Don't use tools like spheres in the model workspace.

---

If you are referring to the sphere primitive then I'd agree. The primitives in Fusion 360 must be the worst implementation of primitives in the CAD world.

However a "normal" sphere (revolve a half circle" is usually fine.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

@TrippyLighting, @mavigogun: Yes, primitives. And my hope was, that this was clear to the TO, because he used them in his linked design. Sry for being lazy in my wording.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

@mavigogun: Not no, perhaps later. Currently I don't have much free time. That's the reason why I just dropped a hint. It looks like you don't like this, because it's not the first time that your comment is "not useful, more details, etc." Even an attached design and screencast was to short. I would be glad that you would just post ab better, more detailed solution instead of complaining.

[mavigogun]

It would be most welcome to hear you expound on the deficiencies of Fusion's Primitives.  I suggest energies would have greater value addressing the original post.   As to the screencast in another post mentioned, I opined over the lack of narration, it being silent- and, ya, it does make for a good example of where I feel a tiny bit more could increase value significantly.  It's a mistake to take such reflection as a wound- though I can understand why you might not feel completely appreciated for your efforts.

As to more detailed solutions, see post #6 above; Far from comprehensive, it's a start.    Maybe when you have time you could reflect on the proposed techniques, pro or con, ramifications, etc?  Those idea would doubtlessly have broader utility and appeal than our social friction.

[lichtzeichenanlage]

I suggest energies spent proclaiming injury would have had greater value addressing the original post.    

Starting to think that the forum misses a ignore feature.

---

---

As you see fit to mention a screencast in another post, I opined over the lack of narration, it being silent- 

Ahh, so silent videos are YOUR problem. Unless it's your problem it's fine for me. 

As to more detailed solutions, see post #6 above.  Far from comprehensive, it's a start- and on topic.   Maybe when you have time you could reflect on the proposed techniques, pro or con, ramifications, etc?   I'm sure those idea would have broader utility and appeal than defensive posturing.

---

Hmmm, that stuff that has slightly more content than a marketing slide. For a complaining guy that might be the thing.

Okay - looks like the forum does not have an ignore button, so I have to do it internally.

[mavigogun]

---

@lichtzeichenanlage wrote:

Not no, perhaps later. Currently I don't have much free time.

Apparently there is time to talk about your feelings- Fusion technique, not so much.   Which is it-  too busy to speak to the topic at hand, or plenty of time to waste on petty squabbles?   Make up your mind.

[TrippyLighting]

@mavigogun Id' say at the current time that @lichtzeichenanlage has got you solidly beat in the number of solutions provided and contributions(screencasts) on this forum.

His native language is German (so is mine) and while his vocabulary might not be as elaborate as yours it would appear it provides more bang for the buck. That is particularly interesting as his screencasts are not overly wordy 😉

[mavigogun]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

@mavigogun Id' say at the current time that @lichtzeichenanlage has got you solidly beat *snip*

It ain't a contest- and, even if it were, my efforts do not reflect on his. It also isn't the topic. This is more petty digression- now with a bit of tribal partisanship thrown in.   Not being a native speaker is no sin, nor obstacle we can't surmount.  Making the focus on ego is a mistake.  

[TrippyLighting]

@mavigogun

Have you used the primitives ?

When you create/place a primitive, say a sphere, and snap it to other geometry and then you change that other geometry, does the sphere remain snapped to the geometry and move to the new location ? No, it does not.

That makes it utterly useless in a parametric CAD application.

Create a box using the primitive.

The first part of the UI presents you with a rectangular sketch that you can dimension. Define 2 user parameters say Width and Length. Place these into the two fields. Then press return. the UI changes to a flat cube with 5 arrows. Another UI dialogue is presented with three fields Length, Width, Height but the two user parameters you just defined are not taken over in these two fields. This is easy to miss.

Why are there 5 arrows, allowing you to change the cube in 5 directions but there are only 3 fields in the UI, instead of 5 ? Why are there only 5, a cube has 6 sides, doesn't it ? Since when have the field descriptions of Length, Width, Height any relevance in a 3D world where you can change the orientation of the geometry at any time ?

What coordinates do length width and height refer to ?

That is why I would call the implementation of primitives in Fusion 360 the worst in the CAD world.

Have you tried the polygon sketch primitive ? Once done, try to change the number of sides. Good luck 😉

But there is a team working on generative design. LOL!

Yet, I manage to do a good bit of my work in Fusion 360. I even managed to help a user creating this piece of artwork in Fusion 360, something that is solidly out of reach for at least  90% of Fusion 360 users, at least the ones that are here on this forum.

You are correct that focusing on ego is a mistake. However, focussing on a software's deficiencies is also a mistake. You seem to gravitate to threads where more experienced users critique implementation details of Fusion 360, however, you have so much to learn in terms of techniques that focussing on these deficiencies in going to be counter productive and only going to frustrate you.

[TrippyLighting]

If you are new to Fusion 360 and to CAD my suggestion would be to try modeling something simpler and to first familiarize yourself with the different tools in Fusion 360.

Or you can try to design this but be prepared to redo it a few times as your confidence with Fusion 360's tool set increases. The toolset, however, is not the only thing that will get better. What most new users have to learn is how to "read" a particular part and break it down into simpler geometry. For example what are primary and secondary shapes. Fillets for example are mostly secondary surfaces and should be applied las where possible.

The piece at hand looks like a cast piece o sorts and many of those nowadays are created entirely with solid modeling.

techniques similar to what Fusion 360 has to offer. While a user experienced in hard surface models in a Sub-D modeler could create this in the T-PSline (Sculpt) environment my suggestion would be to stick with solid modeling and perhaps surfacing techniques (Patch work space) for now.

@lichtzeichenanlage's advice was spot on. Create a single piece of solid geometry and try to fillet it and see if it comes close enough to the shape. There is a loft tool that allows you to blend between different shapes that might well do the trick here.

If more advanced techniques are needed you can move to the patch workspace where you can dissect individual surfaces and loft there are well etc.

Looking right at your first sketch there is already plenty of opportunity for improvement.

Don't replace proper constraints or dimensioning with a fixed constraint. That will only result in problems.

[mavigogun]

---

@TrippyLighting wrote:

Have you used the primitives ?

When you create/place a primitive- *snip a lot of good stuff* -That is why I would call the implementation of primitives in Fusion 360 the worst in the CAD world.

Thanks for the valuable elaboration. I did not contest the assessment of the tool, only asked that a proscription be married to reason so as to provide those unaware- such as myself -some understanding of the nature of the hazard. I reckon others would benefit from that, too.

However, focussing on a software's deficiencies is also a mistake.

As you know, Fusion presents a varied tool kit allowing users to reach goals by many paths. However, some tools have limitations or failures not readily apparent- or, as you've described with Primitives, that include prohibitive liabilities. Not being intimate with these limitations places users in a horrible position, setting out on workflows that may not be resolvable. For any doing serious work with a long investment arc, it would be foolish to not make study of Fusion's limitations and dysfunctions a priority. Not doing so, as you say, would be "counter productive". Simply, when someone says "that tool is broken, don't use it", the natural course is to ask qualifying questions.  Not to do so would be a mistake.

[Anonymous · Accepted solution]

Hi all,

Thanks very much for the feedback. It looks like there isn’t an easy answer to my question (which I’m pleased about as it means I didn’t miss anything obvious).

I very much appreciate all your help. I’ll now go away and have a good practice with mixtures of sculpts (I didn’t know what Pull and Match and object snap were before – thanks) and patches.

I think Peter is right, I need to learn how to ‘read’ a part and break it down into smaller steps. And you’re right about my sketches too. By way of a (minor) defence here, I’ve been trying to model this part for the best part of 2 weeks now so I’m rushing it a little in an attempt to try different things – but I’m learning and getting better at this each time I try (fail:o).

This is only my second post on this forum – and each time I’ve received valuable and helpful feedback. Thanks once again for all your help.

Cheers,

Simon