I love rhino so much but working with it can sometimes be very difficult, especially for new users. So I have this cover I’m working on and need to union the parts on layers “main” and “add_solid” but it just won’t work. What am I doing wrong? Below is a link to the file. Thanks for all contributions.
The outer rims of the two parts partially coincide, and Boolean operations sometimes don’t work with surfaces which coincide.
Split the main solid with add_solid, and then delete the parts of main which will be inside add_solid. Split add_solid with main, and delete the any parts of add_solid which will be inside main, Join the remaining parts together. Use ShowEdges to check for naked edges.
Thanks a lot david, will try it out. But this just seems like a whole lot of process just to do a simple union operation. I actually just tried adjusting the size of the add_solid to make sure the surface is not coincident with the main solid, and indeed, like you said, the union operation was successful. Well, I’ve learnt something new in Rhino.
After you become proficient with Rhino Split, Delete and Join are quick to do. The Boolean commands are great when they work, but when they don’t the quickest solution in many cases, particularly if altering one part isn’t possible due to the design intent or accuracy required.
Also, it’s usually good practice to avoid creating coincident surfaces when possible, and to otherwise trim the coinciding parts as soon as possible.
Hi Alexander - try: Scale1D the AddSolid disc from its top edge so that its lower face is in fact coincident with rhe top of the existing part top face there. BU will work since only planar faces are conincident - usually pretty reliable.
If the capped off holes need to be adjusted in depth, you can sub-object select (Ctrl-Shift click) them and SetPt in Z only to adjust the depth of those holes.
-Pascal
For what it’s worth, the original boolean works in the V6 WIP. There was a major overhaul in the way Rhino handles overlaps in booleans.
1 Like
Ok David. Very well noted and appreciated.
Ok Chuck, looking forward to working with that. Thanks a lot.
Thanks Pascal, well appreciated from here.
For what it’s worth, I model fairly complex organic shapes and often have problems getting boolean operations to work. As a rule,my first step in finding the problem is to use the command “Intersect.” This will draw a curve on the pieces you’re trying to boolean. It also tells you how many intersections are found between the pieces you’re running the operation on. It might not help in this situation, but it’s a nice diagnostic tool that I find very helpful.
Thanks Jroland. I sure will try it out. I appreciate your contribution.
David- SPOT-ON ! Well done. Seriously.
I’ve learned that RH doesn’t handle coincident faces or edges very well with booleans, and have adopted this exact approach, with exactly the success you mention. No criticism, of RH, just wanted to let folks know that the problem altho frustrating IS manageable. We remember that RH is really NOT a true CSG modeler, and are reminded of this each time we switch from any true CSG modeler back to RHINO. I use BOTH Inventor AND AutoCAD - with great success - just depends on the intended product. AutoCAD and a number of ACAD work-alikes (well worth investigating, depending on budget) handled this YEARS ago, but RHINO REMAINS a go-to resource, and handles Booleans fairly well, all things considered.