Fillet with a Zero (0) Radius, a handy tool.

[richardrTR6VB]

I've used plain olde ACAD for years and I regularly use Fillet with a 0 (zero) Radius as a quick and simple way to extend geometries to one another.  I also use this technique to convert fillets to squared intersects.

I notice this was questioned in 2014 by @CGPM, but apparently not enough forum participants up voted this.

I'd like to resubmit this request and add my (1) vote (every vote matters) to request that this feature that exists in plain autocad, be included in Fusion.  It's such a handy feature.  Maybe there's another way to accomplish this in Fusion that I'm not seeing.

It may be that some Fusion users have never experienced using the Fillet with 0 radius and therefore maybe haven't thought about such a feature.

Again, if there's a way to do this that I'm not aware of I'd like to learn it.  But, if there isn't, I'd ask forum members to consider up voting this so that it gets added.  I don't think anyone would regret this capability?

Thank you.

Here's the original POST from 2014

CGPM‎04-14-2014 08:28 AM  Status: ARCHIVED

Fillet with a 0 radius

It would be nice if fillet radius would accept 0 so it could be used to clean up imported sketches.  It is a great way to make the ends of two lines match.

Add tags

Report

3 Votes

VOTE

2 Comments (2 New) 

[davebYYPCU]

Whilst it is handy in Acad - my default radius, 

Fusion sketching is different.  Fillets are not recommended and therefore don’t need removing.  Extend and Trim are there, but most Construction is snapping to end points.

2 votes in 7 years - not surprised.

[TheCADWhisperer]

Attach file here that illustrates a useful case.

[richardrTR6VB]

Here's a file with a variety of profiles.  Some profiles are incomplete.  I don't need (want) to define/constrain these profiles, I just need to complete them so I can otherwise use (extrude) them.

Most of the incomplete profiles are merely tiny gaps at apparent intersections.  I don't want to randomly grab the end of one element and attach it to another (this could skew geometry that I don't want to skew.)  I'd rather not have to zoom in close, and then execute a couple of trims and extends.

With one command, Fillet with Zero radius efficiently performs all of the necessary trims and extends to complete an apparent intersection without having to zoom in very close or otherwise potentially skew the existing geometries.

[davebYYPCU]

For this work, use Coincident constraint and window select the end points, (outline white points) same function as fillet zero.

Might help...

[TheCADWhisperer]

---

@richardrTR6VB wrote:

Here's a file with a variety of profiles.  Some profiles are incomplete.  I don't need (want) to define/constrain these profiles, I complete an apparent intersection without having to zoom in very close or otherwise potentially skew the existing geometries.

---

Oh my, those are rubbish - no way that would find it's way into my work.. 

Did you examine this geometry?  

With degenerate zero radius fillets (in a Parametric CAD software) you are bound to run into issues.  This thread actually shows the opposite side of the coin (Fillets resulting in zero length lines).

https://forums.autodesk.com/t5/fusion-360-support/fusion-360-crashes-stops-responding-after-trying-t...

[richardrTR6VB]

Thanks for taking a look at this and providing the feedback.

Yeah, that's pretty messed up. A napkin sketch (in digital form, if you will) provided by folks who don't really need to think about such technical details. Ultimately, profiles that are selected for a project will get cleaned up, templates, tooling and samples produced and approved, but that won't occur until after the project is approved. Looking at the profiles from afar, they look good enough and are sufficient for the project developers.

So, without deviating too much from the provided profile, I just need to make them usable for initial project developement purposes.

Reading both yours and davebYYPCU posts and experimenting with davebYYPCU suggestion to use coincident constraint and window, led to additional experimentation and thoughts about my request for 0 Radius Fillet.

While experimenting with the conincident constraint suggestion I had the thought that Ortho mode might be a helpful command to help quickly complete these profiles. Searching for Ortho mode in Fusion led me to an Inventor post where a participant was asking for the Ortho mode in Inventor. I also stumbled upon a Fusion post inquirying about sketching without automatic constraints.

It seems that these requests for familar AutoCad commands center around working with (at least initially) more freeform conceptual sketches, where we don't want, need, or have the information to fully constraint the Fusion sketch. And, since we're not fully constraining a sketch, maybe we're a bit lost for commands to create the sketch.

The thought comes to mind to merely use AutoCad for this need and then insert into Fusion, but can such capability be incorporated within Fusion, so there doesn't need to be this added step. I don't think I'm looking for too many commands. 0 radius fillet, ortho mode, pedit with fuzz. Of these, 0 fillet radius stands out the most. It is such a handy command.

These thoughts are dynamic and I'm continuing to experiment with and think about how to quickly complete these profiles. With 0 fillet radius I can be zoomed out fairly far and still pick the desired geometries. With some of the other techniques I've been experimenting with, I've had to at some point in the sequence zoom fairly close in, in order to window around or select an end point.

Fusion sketch has trim and extend commands. 0 fillet radius is basically a combination of these two tools. How about having a command, maybe named sketch "intersect", that basically replicates the AutoCad 0 fillet radius command, but without the degenerate zero radius.

Thank you

[richardrTR6VB]

Thanks for the suggestion.

I experimented with this suggestion and I find that while it does connect the two geometries, one of the geometry end points remains fixed while the other moves (skews it).  So this is not quite the same behavior as the zero fillet that I'm used to with AutoCad.  In AutoCad, zero fillet trims/extends the geometries as needed and does not otherwise change the position of either geometry.

As an observation, I did experience that alternating between selecting the window first and the coincident second, and then selecting the coincident first and the window second, directly changed which end point remained fixed and which end point moved.  Further observed, I did not experience the direction of the window selection (upper left to lower right, or lower right to upper left) having any affect on which point remained fixed and which point moved.

For this technique to work, only two geometry endpoints can be within the window. In the example file I provided, some of the profiles have a lot of rubbish, so I had to zoom in rather close in order to isolate just two ends points. But, sometimes too, due to the amount of rubbish, I had to do extra work to isolate the the two end points that needed to be within the window.

Maybe an "intersect" sketch command could provide a function similar to the AutoCad 0 Radius Fillet.

Thank you.

[davebYYPCU]

There is no advantage to be had from - fixing in Acad and importing - Fusion will still strip out constraints and dimensions.  The profile will be accurate.

Ortho mode in here is Horizontal, Vertical constraining.

Window selecting 2 end points on unconstrained articles is Pot Luck.  Catch 22.

[jfordF8PH9]

Thank you for the information.

[richardrTR6VB]

Further contemplating my request for a version of a 0 Radius Fillet sketch utility tool ("intersect", as I've suggested for a name for such a command), it dawns on me that this intersect command I request is of similar purpose as the existing sketch commands of Trim, Extend, Fillet, Chamfer. All of these commands aid in developing a sketch. These commands do not directly define the sketch. This intersect command would deftly combine Trim and Extend into one single command. A benefit of this intersect command would be the ability to often times pick the desired geometries while zoomed far out, so less zooming. The ability to pick the two geometries from afar is particularly valuable when the gap or trim amounts are very small, and, or, if there's other nearby geometry that otherwise makes it difficult to pick and confirm the correct geometry pick and the fianl result.

The sketch Fillet and Chamfer commands require two geometries, and those geometries can often times be picked from afar. This intersect command would behave similar to the existing Fillet and Chamfer commands, the only difference would be that the result would merely be, well, an intersect. Easier and more assured picks with less zooming could save time, effort, and frustration, when compared to using some combination of zoom, trim and extend to accomplish the same intersect.

Thank you.