04-05-2013, 06:06 PM
(This post was last modified: 04-05-2013, 08:02 PM by puzzledpaul.)
Whilst the setup in the vid seems fine, it's having problems with simpler stuff - basic prims - which is what I often use for initial tests.
ie Cube with sphere ... move sphere so's its center is approx over a cube corner.
Subtract sphere from cube ... ALL new edges are hard.
Subtract cube from sphere ... some of the edges that should be hard ... aren't ... and maybe the ones describing the cube's corner shouldn't be hard either ... if it's only lines of intersection you're after.
pp
Edit
Using your setup / objects as in vid
Doing a union produces no hard edges
also
Making the original 12 edges of the cube hard ... then doing a subtract ... as in the vid ... results in ALL edges being hard.
Edit 2 ... and I know this'll sink like a lead balloon
... but I wonder about the (supposed) 'need' for hard edges at all ... yes, I know why they're wanted ... to help offset selection issues associated with the inherant problems of using booleans.
But I also wonder about the circumstances and (selection) techiques being used by ppl using booleans.
Since Shift L returns boundary edges of a face selection and there are various ways of selecting regions of faces ...
Also, I suspect booleans are often used with symmetrical objects ... often non-organic, methinks ... and thus I (select similar) could be used ... I have already used both of these approaches with some of the tests ... albeit on relatively simple objects.
However - not having to figure out how to produce hard edges only on lines of intersection (for all manner of complex circumstances) would free you to sort out other stuff, maybe.
Without knowing how ppl have gone about selecting (manually) hard edges - on realistic (not test) models ... I'm not in a position to say much more ... + have just been told food's ready
ie Cube with sphere ... move sphere so's its center is approx over a cube corner.
Subtract sphere from cube ... ALL new edges are hard.
Subtract cube from sphere ... some of the edges that should be hard ... aren't ... and maybe the ones describing the cube's corner shouldn't be hard either ... if it's only lines of intersection you're after.
pp
Edit
Using your setup / objects as in vid
Doing a union produces no hard edges
also
Making the original 12 edges of the cube hard ... then doing a subtract ... as in the vid ... results in ALL edges being hard.
Edit 2 ... and I know this'll sink like a lead balloon
... but I wonder about the (supposed) 'need' for hard edges at all ... yes, I know why they're wanted ... to help offset selection issues associated with the inherant problems of using booleans.But I also wonder about the circumstances and (selection) techiques being used by ppl using booleans.
Since Shift L returns boundary edges of a face selection and there are various ways of selecting regions of faces ...
Also, I suspect booleans are often used with symmetrical objects ... often non-organic, methinks ... and thus I (select similar) could be used ... I have already used both of these approaches with some of the tests ... albeit on relatively simple objects.
However - not having to figure out how to produce hard edges only on lines of intersection (for all manner of complex circumstances) would free you to sort out other stuff, maybe.
Without knowing how ppl have gone about selecting (manually) hard edges - on realistic (not test) models ... I'm not in a position to say much more ... + have just been told food's ready