Reactionary Rant - Boolean BS

This is the latest ‘FU’ I’ve gained for my efforts. (171.0 KB)


There’s no doubt something wrong that’s making the application fail. But I’m relying on the application to create the math it requires to proceed. If it requires such a level of precision to perform boolean tasks then why does it not facilitate such precision when one’s creating simpler forms?

I keep the orthogonal restraint as well as the planar restraint on while modeling. I use a millimeter grid, with the snapping set to .5 millimeters.
The “end” snap is displayed when I’m making connections, so these tiny mismatches seem to be beyond my ability to eliminate without micro inspecting and adjusting every single instance.

How can one rely on modeling aids when this sort of thing happens?
Even accounting for the possibility of a mis-snap, there’s no incremental setting that explains the micro errors mentioned below.

I’ve been at this learning process every day for months and the majority of advice I’ve been given is related to how to avoid the the application failing to do what I want; It might be this snap or that snap, or the gumball, or the grid, or the planar setting, or the ortho setting … ‘your curves are messy’, ‘the lines are not parallel’, there’s a misaligned intersection, and so on and on.

The point of modeling aids is to facilitate precision and ease. However the modeling aids require me to facilitate their accuracy! I have to keep an eye on this application lest it errs a micron or two!

When the ‘smart tracking’ indicates that my line is at the end point or perpendicular, or at the quadrant, then it should be so. When I work with the ortho setting on, my lines should be drawn parallel and square - period.

Maybe it’s prudent to only turn on the exact ‘aid’ needed for the next task, but toggling off and on any of six different osnaps is tedious to say the least. Add three clicks for every task needed to model an object and add those up over an eight hour day. Add to that the constant need for checking accuracy and one loses all the joy of design. I’m spending more time serving the application than the application is serving me.

Again, is there a snap setting that would make for an error that tiny? Maybe a .5 increment, or even a .025 increment but not the minuscule amount the lines and angles are off. - not the sort of error that requires a friggin’ micro inspection to detect.

I’m told to not proceed until I can draw accurate lines. Really? Just how difficult can it be to produce such with a friggin’ CAD program?? How much effort must one make to produce orthogonally sound line work?

For Fudd’s sake, is there anything one can rely on without double checking it? I find it hard to accept a application of this caliber is such a precious bit of programming that it demands the level of attention required by a quantum physics experiment.

I’m weary, embarrassed, and extremely frustrated at this point. I’m tired of virtually kissing this application’s ass.

The learning curve can be steep.
Once you understand the ins and outs, what to watch for, what to avoid, and model accordingly you’ll wonder why you ever had these problems.

I’m sorry it’s frustrating for you.

the basic in NURBS-based modelling is pretty straightforward. if you draw bad curves then u will only meet problems constructing the surface. when u already have a bad surface then any boolean operation will become unpredictable or in many case, fail.

I suggest to start learning from a very basic shape. (spoon, shoes, or other model with simple surface continuity, forget about the precision at first but make sure u manage to create a perfect continuity between surfaces) until u know exactly how every command works, how curve degree is linked to the surface, etc, then slowly advance to harder one to start to make your model as precise as possible.

most advanced user in this forum has been doing modelling for years to the point where they know instinctively what to avoid before making any basic mistake.once u reach to that point, u will realize how powerful Rhino can be.

u have been dealing with the same model for months, its better to start fresh with simpler model.

1 Like

I’m mostly venting here. :confounded:

Things are better after a night’s sleep.

I took on this particular model because it has plenty of basice shapes to create and also demads learning a wide variety of tasks to complete it. I also find every aspect of it aesthectically appealing so I don’t tire of this project from that standpoint. Recreating an actual object is much more motivating for me than recreating the tutorial objects. It’s what gets me up in the morning.

I’ve never learned anything in a linear fashion. It’s likely a chracter flaw, but it’s my nature. I seem to only learn things the hard way. But that does engender the Instincts you speak of.

I’m arguably obsessed with this application - again part of my nature.

In time I’ll likely come into a more relaxed professional attitude. Until then I find it next to impossible to leave it alone.

Perhaps in time I’ll even be able to help out another sort like myself.

I would add to that my real gratitude for all the people in this forum and the masters of the universe that created this application.

Oh, and by the way I’ve another er, ahh question… :grinning:

If you could channel or redirect at least a little of the effort into following a good video-based training series like Dave Schultze’s Rhino 5 Essential Training (yes, I know it’s Windows):

You would be LIGHT YEARS ahead and far less frustrated.

Clearly your call, but formal training is ALWAYS orders of magnitude more efficient than bashing ahead on your own.

Well, I must admit I have been watching those vids. I bought a month on lynda and went through them. A lot of brilliant info is forgotten because I don’t use it often enough after first learning it, and my brain is not as adept as it once was. I also have a number of YouTube links to various Rhino tutorials. I told you I’m obsessed. I simply can’t absorb as much info as I’m consuming. Then I get into the model and half the day’s gone. I actually have to force myself to continue to earn a living.

In this case, I’ve two cutting forms needed to model a solid.

Intersect shows clean lines without any coincident surfaces.

If I try to use both objects to subtract from the main form at once the boolean fails. If I do one at a time, the first will work and the second fails regardless of order.

I thought perhaps the small surfaces indicated by the arrows may be an issue but that’s not the case if the upper retangular form is subtracted first…

How does one analyse this? (128.6 KB)

Hi James,

There is an area of coincidence between the cutter and the model (see red elipse) but apart from that, sometimes it’s better to simplify the operation with trial and error when things don’t work out. In this case, if you explode the model, delete and trim half away, then cap and join the half up again, the 3 booleans work. Then extract and delete the capping surfaces on centre and mirror if symmetrical, or join back up if not.

p.s. glad you had a good night’s sleep…

McNeel also offers on demand video training.