Bug in each version of SW. can't round off the next crossing
No bug in SW.
Its the way you model.
I'm not sure you could call it a bug. Move your delete face up to before the second extrusion and it works as shown. My guess is that SW is not recognizing it because you modified one body after the other body existed in such a manner that they can't merge...so no intersection.
Why make a hole only to remove it? You can just extrude through the solid surface and then your fillet will work.
It may be some sort of bug... Not sure where it is (SW code, parasolid kernel, etc), but you've created an invalid body with self-intersecting geometry. It's not a fillet bug for sure, because to fillet you have to share an edge. This is self-intersecting, so there is no edge. If it's a bug, it's actually a failure of the "Delete Face" feature, because the invalid geometry already exists before the fillet. I thought turning on "Verification on rebuild" might catch it, but it doesn't.
Suggest to submit to your VAR. This is not a bug that anyone here can do anything about. It's also not a bug that anyone will care about because it's created by deliberately attempting to create invalid geometry... If you want the certain shape, you can get it in ways that don't create invalid geometry.
From your screenshot,your part is 2 bodies intersecting each other. If you look in the screenshot, there are no edges to show that the body ends there.
You could either have the original function merge with the one you're trying to fillet or use the combine feature to combine both bodies together and then add the desired filets.
Edit: Just to add, you cannot fillet 2 faces from 2 different intersecting bodies as far as I'm aware.
Alex Lachance wrote: From your screenshot,your part is 2 bodies intersecting each other. If you look in the screenshot, there are no edges to show that the body ends there. You could either have the original function merge with the one you're trying to fillet or use the combine feature to combine both bodies together and then add the desired filets. Edit: Just to add, you cannot fillet 2 faces from 2 different intersecting bodies as far as I'm aware. Cheers
Alex Lachance wrote:
Not actually two bodies. I checked the file - It's a single solid body, but it's a carefully constructed, self-intersecting, invalid body that SW just doesn't catch. The problem is actually in the "Delete Face" feature, not the fillet.
My apologies, I had not taken a look at the provided file.
Things you cannot unseen.
's a single solid body, but it's a carefully constructed, self-intersecting, invalid body that SW just doesn't catch.
That's what I was alluding to. If you just move the delete face as I did it works. The problem only occurs when you create a body thru an area where there is nothing and then delete that feature using a command that is suppose to delete a face. When that delete face suddenly creates an intersection between these two bodies SW doesn't know what to do with it. It would have to back figure thru the tree and I'm not sure it can do that. If you delete the thru hole from the first extrude sketch or move the delete face up in the tree it works fine.
I agree with your previous statement, no one will care. Why would you create a hole, then do another command to delete the hole rather than deleting it in the original command? I suppose that might be useful for some reason, but I can't think of any.
Frederick Law wrote: No bug in SW.Its the way you model.
Frederick Law wrote:
I partially disagree. There should be a geometry check during the "Delete face" operation that detects intersection of the new surfaces with existing surfaces and prevents this invalid body from being created, or properly joins the two portions of the body. This model was certainly not modeled incorrectly per Shon's intent... It was done very carefully and intentionally to create an invalid body. The part about the fillet not working is a red herring/dishonesty. Shon knows d____ well that the issue is not with the fillet. An honest post would have been: "Hey, I figured out a way to create an invalid solid body using the Delete Face command".
Actually rounding off isn't necessary to me there. just wanted to show a glitch of SW which quite fervent:-). Actually it is not the last. It is cheerful to work...
So, this isn't a bug of any kind. You've made up something to perhaps make a point, why? A hundred people modeling what you have in the end would not do it the way you've done it. Again, why?
SW doesn't work with models where the body intersects itself. This is not a bug, but a sloppy modeling technique....
Vladimir Urazhdin wrote: SW doesn't work with models where the body intersects itself. This is not a bug, but a sloppy modeling technique....
Vladimir Urazhdin wrote:
It is generally SW's intention to prevent you from being able to create self-intersecting, invalid bodies. From that perspective, this is a bug. The program is not working like it should. This particular model is intentionally created to demonstrate the fact that geometry checking is not working correctly when using the Delete Face command. It's not sloppy. It's a geometrically simple demonstration of a failure of the Delete Face command, which may have been discovered while modeling a much more complicated structure. The post is poorly written though.
Bug because the red flag (self intersection detected) is missing?
It looks like a farmer had some bailer twine, duct tape, and some JB weld then decided to make a part. You could make the actual "part" out of 3 features and have no issues, instead of the 5-6 features and getting a "bug".
Hey I put diesel in my car instead of gas, they're both 'fuel'. It must be a bug.
Vladimir Urazhdin wrote: Bug because the red flag (self intersection detected) is missing?
Essentially, yes. SW should not allow creation of the Delete Face feature due to self-intersecting geometry. Either that, or it should detect the self-intersection and properly merge the portions of the body.
Craig Schultz wrote: It looks like a farmer had some bailer twine, duct tape, and some JB weld then decided to make a part. You could make the actual "part" out of 3 features and have no issues, instead of the 5-6 features and getting a "bug". Hey I put diesel in my car instead of gas, they're both 'fuel'. It must be a bug.
Craig Schultz wrote:
Again.... This is a SPECIALLY CREATED PART intended only to create the simplest instance of this type of geometry checking failure. It's not intended as a functional or real part. Of course it's bad modeling, of course you could model it right. I'm sure (based on posting history) that Shon could model this geometry correctly in his sleep.
Agreed, but despite SW missed a warning, the part has an error, it means the poor modeling technique.
Honestly, I get what you're saying but I don't see it as a bug, unless he can explain why he was doing what he did to achieve this. Why would SolidWorks calculate an interference there? There is a command that SolidWorks already calculates that asks it to delete faces so obviously it will not treat an interference caused by such command as an interference. Perhaps there are people who do use this method and do not find it to be a bug and if it were to be reverted would become a bug for them. Sounds like nitpicking to me.
I'm not sure poor or proper modeling is the metric that should be used to determine a bug. Granted you're more likely to run into bugs with poor modeling technique and SW is less likely to care but if the software doesn't react in a manner consistent to normal functioning it's essentially a bug.
If a person extrudes a cut out "Properly" and it works but then does the exact same thing "Poorly" the software should not create unexpected outcomes. It should either throw a flag that says "Uhhh....no you can't do that" or do it in the same manner that it did under "Proper" conditions.
That being said it's really easy to avoid a lot of bugs that will likely never be fixed if you just don't hose things up badly.
I'm sure I could step in front of a bus, but that's not the smartest way to cross the street.
I could light an M80 in my hand, but I don't need to hold onto it to hear the explosion. (Just ask JPP)
Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. Now if this "bug" wasn't there, someone would complain that SW allows you to do it and it messed up other aspects of their modeling. Just look at the "Why?" post. Over the years I have given up on people who don't want to learn the correct way or the easiest way, they just like to have self inflicted drama.
Pretty cool what you can make.
If you know how
All our life is the next bug:-)))) What SW especially didn't cause a stir in...
Retrieving data ...