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.
Fillets backwards
ryan_payne
Member Posts: 3 ✭
First, after using this for five hours today, this is a great product service software given the fact it is available for free.
I am trying to fillet an edge such that the face of the extruded object gently merges with the face from which the extruded object was extruded (i.e., I'm trying to fillet it to create a shape similar to what you would get if you ran your finger along a seam of chaulk between your tub and the wall.) However, the fillet is going into the extruded part, not away from. How can I get this to fillet correctly?
Thanks
I am trying to fillet an edge such that the face of the extruded object gently merges with the face from which the extruded object was extruded (i.e., I'm trying to fillet it to create a shape similar to what you would get if you ran your finger along a seam of chaulk between your tub and the wall.) However, the fillet is going into the extruded part, not away from. How can I get this to fillet correctly?
Thanks
0
Answers
Maybe try disabling "Tangent Propagation", and make sure only one joint line has been selected. It could be that an adjacent line/joint is causing the issue
That said, i have a guess - i bet that the edge you are trying to fillet is not infact the junction of two faces, but the edge of a separate part.
How did this happen? One of your prior operations is set up 'New' vs 'Add'.
Check that the part count is what you expect. If it's n+1, then that's more proof.