Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.
First time visiting? Here are some places to start:- Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
- Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
- Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
- Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.
If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.
Problems with face connections
Ferallez
Member Posts: 9 ✭
Hi, I am wondering how to avoid this situation when modeling. Anyone have a recommendation to make the chamfers better?
Thanks a lot for the help in advance
0
Comments
You’ll need to build this shape manually to get the result you want. Unlike some other CAD tools, Onshape doesn’t have a chamfer type which offsets the edges from the adjacent faces.
The easiest way to clean this up would be to use the "move face" command after adding the chamfer and use "up to" the vertex
The problem is if you want the Front view in @eric_pesty 's example to have a consistent offset from the pocket. Move face is definitely a quick fix, but it also moves the outer edge of that chamfer.
The real issue is that Onshape has limited options for controlling chamfer dimensions. Ideally there would be at least 5 different ways of dimensioning chamfers (plus options for flipping the direction).
I thought I had created an Improvement request for this, but I can't find it. I'll add one.
@S1mon , good illustration!
I thought the face blend with the chamfer option would be able to do it but it's the same issue. It does work if you add a split first and use it as a "tangent hold line":
I am happy knowing that can be done. Thanks for the guidance
By extracting a face, offsetting and splitting the edges of a the pocket, I was able to get a consistent depth for the chamfer, and then using Face blend with Chamfer (thanks @eric_pesty , I had forgotten about that) and Cliff edges, I got something closer to what I would see as the desired state.
However, the mitered corners are curved in a weird way. What I like best is offsetting all the surfaces and extending them where needed, splitting the original surfaces and lofting. This takes a bunch of manual steps, but it gets the cleanest result to my eyes.
People coming from a sub-d/polygonal modeling background find the chamfers that mechanical CAD produces to be really frustrating in how things don't line up in the corners. ID people would never want things to look like this either. I'm still working on turning this into an Improvement Request.