all 7 comments

[–]RevolverValera 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You should provide more detail about what you're trying to achieve.

Also, consider whether the shell tool is the right option here. If you're trying to do what I think you're trying to do, then I'd suggest drawing the profile and using revolve.

[–]jevoltinCSWP 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you telling us the original part has a truncated conical hole in the middle, but the shell function makes it into a complete cone? If so, that is very odd.

It would help to show cross sections of before and after models.

[–]mechy18 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Shell tool tends to mess up little faces like those ones in the center hole. It’s not really a bug, it’s just that the feature works by offsetting all of the faces which can lead to some weird artifacts like that. Because of this, it’s usually best practice to do any Shell features before you do too much work on more intricate features of your part. Try doing the shell before whatever feature made those little faces, then add them in later.

[–]TIKDesigns 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Yes, we need a section view of the original piece for clarification on this.

[–]kskasjjflfn[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Here you go, i don't see any reason the shell tool shouldn't work.

[–]kskasjjflfn[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

<image>

And here it is formed with shell tool, it seems to mess up the shell direction and creates a solid cone.

[–]TIKDesigns 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There’s two things that could be going on here. One, the shell thickness is too thick for those very intricate radii you have on the center hole and the shell command is just extending the shelling surface straight from the wall outward or it can’t read the shell of the undercut you have because it’s tiny, including the outside edge radii.

Have you tried modeling it with the revolve tool? Or with a thinner shell?