Go Back   AC3D Forums > General > AC3D Suggestions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 6th November 2007, 03:03 PM   #11
lisa
Senior Member
Professional user
 
lisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 917
Question Re: Extend surface to intersect another surface.....

Maybe you have different versions of the plug-in on your computers?
lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th November 2007, 03:32 AM   #12
coldby
Senior Member
Professional user
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 102
Default Poltergeists

Mmh, hardly: every time a new version appears I use to re-install the whole lot on both machines, plugins included. And since a few versions the booleans aren't a plug-in anymore. And as a physicist I'm pretty sceptical about supernatural manifestations. Still, it keeps happening.
Must be some devious Windows alchemy, but I'll be damned if I have the faintest hint about what it can be. Would any Mac user contribute his own share of experience on this messy subject?
coldby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th November 2007, 05:49 PM   #13
coanda
Member
Expert member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 72
Default Re: Poltergeists

I think you can buy 3 legged tables (which are perfectly stable when used in the right way!) - you have to screw them to the wall tho....

You may be a physicist, and I may be a structural engineer - but that doesn't mean that we can't use AC3D in different ways.

Using the boolean operation on 2 extruded surfaces always brings me pain. It can work with extruded surfaces and solids - but thats not how I'm using it.

Coanda
coanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2007, 04:55 AM   #14
coldby
Senior Member
Professional user
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 102
Default ... more things in Heaven and Earth...

No, 3-legged tables are perfectly stable on the floor too, even better than usual 4-legged ones (which allows you considerable saving on screws) - except when some exoteric Incarnation gives them a good shake, of course

Coanda, are we sure we're talking about the same software? I just tried it bluntly one minute ago: a randomly drawn extruded surface (mind you, not line) subtracted from another randomly extruded surface. Well, apart from one degenerated surface (easily removed with an "optimize surfaces") the outcome was perfectly OK. The disturbing side is my vague feeling that when I'll try the same tonight at home it just won't work.

I concluded that AC3D must be of the female persuasion (Lisa, don't growl that loud now!): there's always something to it that we poor defective XY models just cannot understand...
coldby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16th November 2007, 01:43 PM   #15
lisa
Senior Member
Professional user
 
lisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 917
Default Re: Extend surface to intersect another surface.....

Lol!

I'm not sure, but I suspect it's a bit fickle about joint placement. i.e. I usually get better results if I'm careful not to have any co-planar edges between the two things I'm trying to boolean.
lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2007, 04:38 AM   #16
coldby
Senior Member
Professional user
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 102
Default co-planar edges???

Lisa, if I get you right your requirements are damn stringent: by definition every euclidean triangle in the Universe consists of three co-planar edges joined together - not to mention every possible non-distorted polygon. How in the Hell am I supposed to leave them out?

Your confused Coldby
coldby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th November 2007, 07:31 PM   #17
lisa
Senior Member
Professional user
 
lisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 917
Default Re: Extend surface to intersect another surface.....

Not quite what I meant. I mean, don't allow two edges to line up exactly with each other. For example, if you try to boolean an object with a duplicate of itself, it will almost always seem to go haywire. But, if you make the second object just a smidge larger so the edges don't line up (i.e. the two edges between the two *different* objects do not lie in the same plane) it seems to work more reliably.
lisa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th November 2007, 04:52 AM   #18
coldby
Senior Member
Professional user
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 102
Default Wow...

Lisa, you certainly got me scared! However things begin to make some better sense now, thanks.
Still it seems to me that - in your example - in order to avoid co-planar edges between the two 'booleands' you should also rotate a trifle the copy: by merely enlarging it, the edges of #2 would stay parallel to #1's - and parallel lines cannot help being co-planar.
Generally speaking I tend to agree with you, though without being able to pinpoint the cause of the problem: apparently the current booleans detest whatever kind of "exact" alignment between the booleands: e.g. a sphere subtracted from a cube would produce a messy result if centered precisely on a vertex, but the mess would promptly disappear by misplacing either object by just an epsilon in any direction.
Why? I'll tell you as soon as I find a gypsy
coldby is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:56 AM.


AC3D Forum
(C) Inivis Limited 2020