[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.
[quote]
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.