I don’t get what is so difficult to understand about what I have said.
You are not going to find more efficient ways unless you put booleans aside and give it a serious try modeling without them.
If you don’t like that advice I am happy to give you your money back.
New users in particular have enormous opportunity to gain by putting booleans aside. If new users force themselves to model without booleans they can learn in weeks or even days what it would take them years to learn if they get stuck in the rut of using booleans.
modeling without boolean is sometimes impossible. I use Solidworks and the boolean operation is included also in this CAD, e.g. the hole wizard.
You have 3 ways how to start modeling and it is up to you which way do you chose.
The 1st way is to begin with sketch simple as possible and add the features step by step - adding or substracting.
The 2nd way is to begin with the exact and complicated sketch.
The 3rd way is mix of way 1 and 2.
I agree with your recommendation to learn how to construct clean geometry rather than rely on booleans while coming to grips with 3D methods, but to advice users not to use booleans and that they are a trap is bizarre. I would definitely want my money back for that advice.
If students are adviced to struggle with booleans in situations which will no-doubt fail instead of using other methods for that particular situation, then the teaching methods are flawed (I doubt this is the case).
To with-hold knowledge of how to properly use a legitimate tool, which the majority of users likely use on a daily basis, is indeed, difficult for me to understand.
Using Rhino to create the type of planar, blocky, closed polysurface modelling, which we are discussing here (Jeff’s examples above), I can’t imagine not using booleans - I’d be interested to learn the boolean alternatives which will make work more productive with this specific type of geometry.
[quote=“jim, post:116, topic:37390, full:true”]
I don’t get what is so difficult to understand about what I have said. [/quote]
it’s difficult because you’re not explaining what type of scenarios you’re talking about nor giving any examples of your words.
maybe you don’t use rhino in the same way as others might… for me, rhino is three main things… it’s a design tool, an engineering tool, and it’s a shop tool… (and i mean shop tool in the same sense as i’d be talking about a table saw or a clamp or a chisel… it’s on the shop floor and it’s telling you the info to set many of the other tools too.)
i feel all of your critiques(?) are limited to the design phase, very little in (what i refer to as) the engineering phase, and about zero in the construction phase… in which case, yes, i pretty much agree with you… i don’t really agree with your reasonings, just that i typically don’t use boolean tools while designing… (and for the record, like you, i also don’t think the OP should be using booleans to accomplish what i think he’s wanting to accomplish)
designing phase is pretty much dealing with what people will see when looking at the finished product… the outer shell. this is where you’re (well, me) mainly dealing with surfaces and shapes and not concerned so much with volumes and even less, with boolean operations.
the engineering phase is different though… it’s how the thing is going to actually be built… if the object itself is a volume or couple of volumes then yeah, probably not much need for booleans… but when the object is tens, hundreds, thousands of individual solids which need to be assembled in order to shape and support the surface then the tune changes… a lot… especially when many of the items are either the same one in an array or when the items are very similar in cuts except, say, individual lengths.
it’s this stage in modeling when booleans are most likely to be used by me personally… it’s this part that you’re seemingly completely unaware of so when you say “don’t use booleans and you’ll be more proficient”, it just makes no sense.
idk, here’s a little video riffing on miters which hopefully shows a little more about the scenarios i’m talking about:
in the situations where i show i’d use a boolean tool, i’d really like to know of your better ways/methods… i feel if i took your advice then i’d be spending at least 2-3x longer for modeling what should be simple and speedy parts… and in an overall project, i’d say at least half of the computer time is spent engineering… a lot of the engineering steps require precision and not much else… it’s cad monkey work and the sooner i can be done with these steps, the better.
why you recommend i should draw all these parts individually instead of intersecting solids is beyond me.
You are not going to find more efficient ways unless you put booleans aside and give it a serious try modeling without them.[/quote]
here’s a thread where i posted a project i did earlier this year:
it looks like the type of project that screams ‘use booleans’ but i used exactly zero… in fact, i didn’t even use surfaces or solids… mostly just points and polylines and trig. these were all that was used on the computer to get from concept to final product… (well, i did do a minimal amount of extruding in order to do some renders in the pre-build phase).
booleans would have been too slow and a lot harder to do various iterations… so i didn’t use them and instead ‘put booleans aside’ even though it most definitely would be the path taken by a so-called boolean addict such as myself.
you’re not giving advice though… you only think you are but in reality, you’re talking about some fairly limited use cases but making the mistake by thinking everybody else is modeling the same thing as you or needing rhino for the same purposes.
If I overlook your statement about stupid users which tells me more about you you should know I use Rhino, Solidworks and Surfcam together . Rhino for its freedom of modeling and Solidworks for exactly defined components. But in both CAD systems I need boolean. Do you know what is engineering and manufacturing about?
Sorry to say you are pure troll
jim… jim… jim…
Arguments from both parties are valid, and none are stupid.
When Nosorozec states it’s “impossible” I presume he means within his workflow and timeschedule, based on his chosen approach to modelling. And you are king of simplifying your statements, so you should expect others to do the same, and thus read between the lines like people have to do with your statements.
I have modeled for 20 years now and Booleans are still a great part of my workflow as they save me tons of time. BUT that is ONLY because I know what to expect from them and how to use them and I agree that new users are bound to hit their head on the wall a lot if they trust booleans to magically ignore the tolerance in the file, or the massive amount of controlpoints in their novice surfaces etc.
My point is: In the hands of a skilled user booleans are great. BUT learn how to model with out them and how to bugtrack them when they fail, as they will fail. But so will split and trim in the same scenarios, but then one is more hands on on the surfaces, and more likely to quickly find the fault.
Your difficulty in understanding is exactly what I mean when I say booleans make you stupid.
The users who decides to learn to do without booleans will gain knowledge much faster of how to make booleans work than if they had decided to pursue the boolean path.
A problem I often observe in examples I have seen of booleans is that the users of booleans often don’t have good knowledge of how to properly use the tool. What they think is knowledge of the proper use of the tool is in fact mostly superstitious belief, The user who learns to do without booleans will be much better equipped to use any legitimate tools.
heh, i’ve never talked with this guy before but had the impression he was a much more beneficial forum member than i’m now realizing… up until my latest post, i really did think he was the type of person capable of having a two-way conversation.
upon seeing the posts after my attempt at further explanation, where he’s now attacking other people with insults, it’s become much more clear to me what this guy is about…
srry it took me so long to see it.
There’s a big difference between a highly engineered part for a nuclear power plant and a bit of stage scenery or hobbyist tinkering… If you’re working to the kind of tolerances you are I can see that knowing the ins and outs of the geometry you’re creating makes sense.
If you’re a model maker who is working to an insane deadline where a ‘bodge’ will do then you don’t need to fret over the detail. They’re maybe not paid as handsomely and are not often afforded the luxury of time.
If this was an engineering forum for nuclear plant design then maybe your argument would hold water?
Everyone knows that a Boolean anywhere near a nuclear reaction will instantly create a Black Hole which will collapse into a singularity that would plunge our world into oblivion! Trust Jim to never do such a foolish thing.
It’s one thing to call me stupid but do you think booleans are stupid too? I don’t really need an answer to that, but I was just trimming up this solid, as illustrated, and wondered how you would do this in a more productive way;
Steps taken - ‘Box’ followed by ‘BooleanDifference’, and ‘delete’ box.