03-27-2013, 12:19 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-27-2013, 12:30 PM by puzzledpaul.)
(03-26-2013, 04:29 PM)ggaliens Wrote: Nothing gets fixed when people don't complain.
Several things cross my radar.
Make greater use of the info line - rather than just have LMR etc with title, add a brief description ... on that line ... since there appears to be capacity / space for additional text.
Personally, I can't see why all boolean ops can't be dealt with in the same way...ie user selects one object > Bool op of choice > then selects appropriate subsequent objects ... keep it consistent ... with info line content such as (for subtract, say) ... second object subtracted / removed from first object...or for union ... second (or more) objects added to first.
The results of subtract (especially - not tried intersect plug) appear to return hard edged results that are inconsistent ... depending on how the the second object is aligned with the first.
Eg a blind hole cut into a cube by a cylinder produces a different set of hard edges compared with a thro' hole cut by same cylinder ... and both different from a hole cut by cyl which has its end faces co-incident with the cube's relevant faces.
Also, the positioning of edges joining a cylinder to a cube's face(s) (after subtract) seems a little odd ... when one is central, the other past centre ... as well as such edges being hard?
Such anomolies - if can't be sorted, would, imo, make the provision of a user pref for hard / no hard edges to be returned worth considering.
This'd give user the option of selecting ... and making hard ... whatever edges *they* want to be so ... OR having to make soft the unwanted hard edges returned by the feature.
Swings'n roundabouts may be the response ... but at least the user could choose which they'd prefer.
Just some thoughts.
pp