Ken

Have you tried toggling the Y key?

Here's where I'm stuck. I have three NURBS surfaces. They all touch. I figure to combine them somehow into one, then manually move a 3D vertex on each side for added strength (at the connect between the two basic forms). Then use the Shell tool. But how to combine NURBS surfaces into one NURBS surface? Object is turned upside down for clarity.

Shell tool yes, but first need an easy way to define the NURBS surface at the transition. I vaguely recall some way of using Digital Terrain Model (DTM), which is now called Site Model? There used to be a way of vertically projecting downward to 3D points thereby producing a "ground cover" which hopefully is just a NURBS surface. I did not explore it back then when I heard about it. Anybody know? I've downloaded Rhino 5. It's interesting -- a whole new set of tools to learn.

What's a better way to digitally model this? I made a Boolean assembly of extrudes and sweeps. Problem is that the material between the two basic forms is not consistent. Nor the desired result. Might not even be achievable. Or way too expensive. It's supposed to be a sheet metal part that's stamped or cold forged onto underlying objects that are basically a cylinder on its side and a cylinder on its end. Alternately, with some tweaking to the digital model, it can be injection molded plastic. Hoping for some way of "draping" a consistent-thickness loft onto it while maintaining perfect horizontal alignment.

Thank you all for the great advice!

Yes I had to use multiple extrude for both inside cylinder (the void) and outside. How else to produce a tapered cylinder? But more to the problem, why can't the resulting edges take fillet? Is fillet very limited? If so, what other method is available to ease the edges of compound solids?

Such a simple question. I can't find the answer in any literature or search. I've just signed up for SS. Logged into Nomad on my iPad (iOS 7.0.4), sync'd with my DropBox, but Nomad only sees the PDF documents. How is Nomad better than DropBox if it only sees PDF files?

The cylinder I first posted didn't take the fillet. But here's my real project where it's not working. The cylinder is actually not straight. Both inside and outside diameters taper, as in "draft" for injection molding. Hopefully not too complicated for fillet? I've got many more instances that are more complicated.

So it works for you? It's not working for me for a cylinder. That's what I'm saying.

In the current version (v2014), how can I fillet the circumferential edge of a cylinder? [img:left]http://i.imgur.com/7FGcLzq.jpg[/img]

Subject title says it all. I want to run it on Microsoft Surface Pro.

But why do YOU need to call ME? Think about it. Do you start every reply by saying "you didn't draw it correctly" ... "you made a mistake" ... "you have a problem" ?? I'm not claiming any knowledge at all. Why assume that? YOU keep ignoring the specific issue. Why don't YOU answer the question directly. How did YOU modify the drawing that YOU previously shown? I've circled it below. What is the shape of the pillar object at the T-join? YOU keep thinking that YOU are trying to help me (and you're speaking for others now? who's "we" as in "we try to help you" ??). Why don't YOU think of this exercise as another opportunity to display YOUR immense knowledge? Because I'm the foolish one, right? If YOU had any wisdom, YOU would understand that this is actually all just trying to identify the problems and pursuing the solutions or work-arounds in Vectorworks. Why must it be YOU against me? Do you always have to be correct? (Click HERE ) Maybe nobody will ever know if this problem lies perhaps with a file translation from v2010, or in a layer-linked model as opposed to stacked layers, or a different shape of the corner pillar... or any number of other possibilities. I inserted a pillar at that corner, and the seam reappeared. You have the same drawing file. Go figure. P.S. Notice how annoying and offensive it sounds when you use the word "YOU" so much? So how should I call you then? Right.

You seem unable to put two and two together! Sure it's fine on its own. But it's not that simplistic. The other wall is on another layer! YOU ARE THE ONE who showed the seamless solution in this discussion above! Why do you delete the critical issue and/or ignore it? How did you do this? This is YOUR DRAWING. I've only added the red arrow and words, "EXISTING CORNER." Is the corner object a pillar? There's a fill object above as lintel spanning from corner to corner. It's a wall segment on another layer as you already know. It cannot be shown on the floor plan. The lower layer/walls at the L corner must show the existing corner chamfer. P.S. And why do YOU always use the word YOU directed at the questioner? YOU should learn how to soften your replies. Do YOU understand how this is not just the English language?

My reply here summarizes the situation: http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=161510#Post161510

And so we come back to the initial subject of this discussion ? why isn't a gable roof considered a structural object? Or maybe it is for the middle gable, but not the lower gable.

Yes! Now we have two of the three little issues resolved. The biggest little issue, that of the corner wall situation, still remains. 2 out of 3 ain't bad.

Aren't you talking about coincident planes (not parallel walls in his examples)? If I understand "coincident," it would be the correct assessment of the underlying problem here. I don't have 2011, but in testing 2012, the new intersecting line is a big welcome. Coincident objects, however, behave the same (from 2010). I don't understand how difficult it would be for Vectorworks to calculate the viewer's LOCATION while viewing coincident objects ON THE OTHER SIDE of an opaque plane or object. In other words, if you're on the other side enjoying a smooth flat perfect surface, why you would see what's attached to the object? This would be like clear glass architecture everywhere you go! Maybe we just need the Sun, Moon and Stars to align for our upgrade. :grin:

Your lack of English comprehension (as you said HERE) is becoming more apparent. It's not about calmness. Maybe you should learn about sarcasm and facetious responses to apologetic reasoning. It's not about helping me. I'm just pointing out problems in Vectorworks that still exist in the latest 2012 version. You can do whatever you like about it ? ignore it, work around it, fudge it, apologize for it, etc. If nobody else has the same problems, then yes you can go ahead and laugh at me all you want.

Yes, the solution seems to be to fudge it, clip it, give it special attention. The extra work is supposed to be "better and faster." :whistle: But also notice the middle gable does NOT have the same problem! It was created in identical manner. Go figure! Maybe best to give ALL THOSE situations special, extra, detailed clipping and fudging work, just to make our workflow BETTER and FASTER. :whistle:

Here's another old seam problem. Simplified example, viewport, Hidden Line render, on sheet layer, VW2012. How do you eliminate the annoying seam?

This seam. Click here: http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=161510#Post161510 Don't you love going in circles? :crazy:

Is that what you did here? Because when I tried a pillar object, I get this:

You just have to use a column at the join, the rest can stay a wall. If you don't want to use columns, you can always use a symbol in one of the walls. No. Like I said, I do use pillars as workarounds IN MINIMUM to avoid other problems, one of which is the appearance of seams. Why don't you answer my other post about the corner wall situation? Click this link: http://techboard.vectorworks.net/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=161435#Post161435 Besides, you don't seem to notice my example where I've simply hacked the wall manually and inserted a little line segment. It's a quick workaround. So you believe a pillar object is FASTER, SIMPLER, or somehow BETTER?!

Unfortunately, the object must be a wall object for symbol insertion with half wall breaks. Column or pillar workarounds also get too unwieldy for modifications, so I keep them to a minimum. Forum discussion note: Why don't you delete the repeat image in your quote so it's less of an eyesore? We are, afterall, experts at graphic communications in our essence, are we not?

Yes. This is a good new feature. Also the new foreground and background options are helpful.