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
1 Like
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.
Just my 2€ on the topic
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.
1 Like
I just finished modeling the tooling components for a turbo-expander housing that is being manufactured for nuclear power plant.
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?
i dont think that insulting each other will make it better
pls stick to the topic. there have been several posts here
which are just not feeding the info… include me if you wish.
but dont crawl over each other justifying who the fuck ever is better…
if there is nothing more to talk than just about each others pride
then maybe get something else to do.
i dont adress now anybody specific but you can be sure
that i am talking about several people.
4 Likes
Any booleans used?
3 Likes
no .
1 Like
3 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
Who called you stupid?
I do believe you would improve your modeling skills (and get smarter) if you committed to doing your modeling without booleans, but if you don’t want to do that - that’s your choice. Its not my problem.
i think the spiel revolves around the idea if you get yourself into a scenario where a boolean tool is the viable option, then you’ve already made the mistake.
if you foresee a boolean operation down the line then you should at that point come up with a different approach in which you’ll avoid the need for a boolean… if you simply continue along the boolean path then you haven’t considered other options and you’ve very likely missed out on an opportunity to arrive at the goal in a more efficient manner… people are ‘stupid’ when they continue along the boolean path since they aren’t thinking about using other techniques and are just blindly wandering down the rocky boolean path.
and if you train yourself in the above manner to avoid booleans then eventually, you’ll just never foresee a boolean operation down the line since your thought out techniques have proven superior and have replaced booleans as one of your go to methods… booleans will no longer be in your modeling language.
which highlights the reasoning as to why beginners shouldn’t be taught to use booleans… if a beginner uses booleans then they’re creating the unnecessary and difficult hurdle of needing to unlearn bad habits if they ever hope to become master modelers.
a lot of this is entirely arguable but i don’t think an argument will be noted here…
but just trying to summarize what jim is saying (albeit in a completely ambiguous manner for whatever reasons).
Your attempt to summarize what I said failed. You have made a half dozen attempts to misrepresent what I said. I think people can understand what I’ve said without your mangled summaries.
When beginners learn to model in Rhino with booleans they are not learning bad habits. The real problem is that the beginner is not learning much of anything at all. That’s why I said using booleans makes you stupid. If you want to learn more and learn it faster, try modeling without booleans.
If you want to have a clear understanding of why booleans in Rhino work and why they fail the fastest and most effective way to gain that knowledge is to learn to model without booleans. Beginners who learn to model without booleans can learn in weeks or even days what may take them years (if ever) to learn if they model with booleans. As an added benefit you may discover that often there are better ways to get to the desired end result.
Now you can rant like the guy who started this thread and say that the user shouldn’t have to learn how the Rhino geometry creation process works. The users should be able to rely on the abstract methods that Rhino provides and shouldn’t have to worry their pretty little heads about how the underlying process works.
But the reality is, taking that stance is simply not going to get you very far.
-jim
1 Like
This part is unfortunately true, I have to say. Being in architectural education these days, I am confronted regularly by statements of “I want to learn Grasshopper, I don’t care about or have interest in learning modeling with Rhino…”
And also in reference to one of the early posts by the OP in this thread relative to GH - Boolean operations in GH are not only prone to failure for the same reasons that the standard Rhino commands are - they are using the same code base and geometry engine after all - but they can also be pretty slow compared to a lot of the other GH operations. So your definition can get stuck in the mud pretty fast, even if the Boolean ops are succeeding. However, if the geometry is constructed so that there are clear-cut intersections, Booleans also succeed in GH. Personally, insofar as possible, I always try to build stuff out of discreet surfaces that have known common edges and join them afterwards rather than intersecting objects and hoping the trims work…
–Mitch
1 Like
i posted that summary since i really did think that’s what you were getting at… not as some sort of stab or rant or whatever… i’m sorry
Don’t be, I actually don’t think it’s personally meant, the way I see it it’s rather a sign of a mind that prefer to have things as accurate as possible, only ironically it’s manifested with a voice that is far from nuanced.
Jim suffers from confirmation bias. He only uses examples that support his position and ignores those that don’t. I say “boolean on!”