Easier / Better Way to Do Fillets?

[chrisb]

I have modified your file according to the comments above. You will have to recompute it to get a valid FreeCAD file. I had to minimize it in order to reduce the size.

Edit: I was able to reduce the size even further (from 3.1MB to 160K!). You will have to make Body and SubtractivePipe visible and recompute the whole document.

[rebeltaz]

I have modified your file according to the comments above. You will have to recompute it to get a valid FreeCAD file. I had to minimize it in order to reduce the size.

Edit: I was able to reduce the size even further (from 3.1MB to 160K!). You will have to make Body and SubtractivePipe visible and recompute the whole document.

I can't get that to recompute (it says failed to parse expression), but that's ok. I can see what you did. I'm not used to thinking in Subtractive terms. I will have to try to remember that. The reason I did the fillets separately was so I would know what fillet did what in case I needed to modify one specific feature. I appreciate all of your help and advice. Were those the only issues with my process?

How did you manage to get the file size down?!

[chrisb]

I can't get that to recompute

You may need a current 0.19 version, this is mine:

OS: macOS High Sierra (10.13)
Word size of OS: 64-bit
Word size of FreeCAD: 64-bit
Version: 0.19.18524 (Git)
Build type: Release
Branch: master
Hash: bea009c1d52b97655dab2d5c0fbddec30989a902
Python version: 3.7.3
Qt version: 5.12.5
Coin version: 4.0.0a
OCC version: 7.3.0
Locale: English/Germany (en_DE)

Were those the only issues with my process?

Some more remarks where I was too sloppy last time:
- Sketch and Sketch001 seem to be identical. You could either use CarbonCopy or external geometry or even better: pad with two lengths

- In the lamp guide1 sketch you use a construction circle to make two arcs equal. You don't need that: for one you can set arcs equal which makes the radiuses equal. For two you can use the point-on-object constraint, even if the point lies on a virtual extension of the object. This wouldn't save much but one element and two constraints is more than nothing.

- same sketch: avoid dimensions if possible. You can and should replace the 90° by an orthogonal constraint.

- In lamp guide2 it is similar: you don't need any construction geometry and only one external line, if you use more symmetry and point-on-line constraints. This reduces the number of elemens from 21 to 10 and the constraints from 50 to 23.

How did you manage to get the file size down?!

I fumbled directly in the FreeCAD file and deleted things.
I attach the FreeCAD file (without modifying after saving), where I have removed later steps.

[rebeltaz]

You may need a current 0.19 version

Ah.. yes. Mine is 0.18.3

Some more remarks where I was too sloppy last time:
- Sketch and Sketch001 seem to be identical. You could either use CarbonCopy or external geometry or even better: pad with two lengths

Yeah... that was unintentional. Originally, Sketch had a larger upper lip than Sketch001. Only after I was completely through modelling the whole thing did I realize that that wouldn't work. The only thing I could thing to do that wouldn't break the other features was to make the first sketch the same as the second.

- In the lamp guide1 sketch you use a construction circle to make two arcs equal. You don't need that: for one you can set arcs equal which makes the radiuses equal. For two you can use the point-on-object constraint, even if the point lies on a virtual extension of the object. This wouldn't save much but one element and two constraints is more than nothing.

- same sketch: avoid dimensions if possible. You can and should replace the 90° by an orthogonal constraint.

- In lamp guide2 it is similar: you don't need any construction geometry and only one external line, if you use more symmetry and point-on-line constraints. This reduces the number of elemens from 21 to 10 and the constraints from 50 to 23.

Umm... what is an "orthogonal constraint" and a "point-on-object constraint?" I'm going to have to re-read this again later. For some reason, it's not making sense right now. I will try to make sense of that, though, because to be honest, those two sketches were a real pain! I knew I wasn't going about them the most efficient way, but with my limited knowledge, I didn't know how else to do it at the time.

I attach the FreeCAD file (without modifying after saving), where I have removed later steps.

I will look at that tomorrow. Thank you again for your tips!

[chrisb]

Umm... what is an "orthogonal constraint" and a "point-on-object constraint?"

and

... those two sketches were a real pain! I knew I wasn't going about them the most efficient way, but with my limited knowledge, I didn't know how else to do it at the time.

If you are interested, I have collected some information on elements, constraints, and sketching: https://owncloud.gwdg.de/index.php/s/HS ... I/download

[rebeltaz]

and

d'oh! I didn't know their official name

If you are interested, I have collected some information on elements, constraints, and sketching: https://owncloud.gwdg.de/index.php/s/HS ... I/download

"Sketcher Lecture"... lol... Awesome! I will definitely read that. Thank you!

[freedman]

I have never tried this but I wonder; if after a fillet is made you select a couple edges of the fillet and put a datum line thru them. This might act as a place holder.

[chrisb]

I don't quite understand what you are aiming at, but please note that fillets can be applied to arbitrary edges resulting from other operations. So even if you use only arcs and lines in your sketches, there can be arbitrary curves in the model. It may be difficult to get the normal of fillets based on such lines.

[bejant]

Umm... what is an "orthogonal constraint"

I'd call it a "Perpendicular Constraint"...

[chrisb]

I'd call it a "Perpendicular Constraint"...

That is the correct notion. I was distracted by the hotkey "N" which I remember as "normal".