Intersect Tool Missing! Available as separate plugin.

[oort]

If puzzledpaul's last suggestion is eventually doable, it sounds quite logical to me...

Repeating in my words to be sure I understand his suggestion....

Select all objects to be involved in the operation > RMB > Booleans > Combine > Objects get combined...

Select all objects to be involved in the operation > RMB > Booleans > Subtract > Select Objects to subract > RMB to Execute. This assumes that Wings will remember what the original selection was that the subtract objects will be removing geometry from.

oort

[puzzledpaul]

Whatever the workflow ... whether it can be tidied up / made more consistent (or not) ... imo, user experence would be improved with better info line text - especially as there seems to be space for it.

Whilst I've not used it for many, many years, I recollect Rhino3D as having a very smooth workflow wrt boolean ops. Note I'm not talking about the actual (quality of) the geometry produced ... but the way user accesses the tools.

Unfortunately, I suspect such a workflow isn't readily compatible with wings', since user (iirc) could select the required boolean op ... without any object being selected.

As ever, my memory could be playing tricks, tho

pp

[micheus]

I also think this way.
User select one or more objs (A) + select operation + select one or more objs (B) + execute.
By selecting many objs, user is deciding for make their union before proced with the operation:
A=A1 U A2 U A3 U A4
B=B1 U B2

at the end, you'll have the regular operation, p.ex.: A U B

it seems logical for me.

[puzzledpaul]

Only having brief plays atm with this, but also noticed that undo returns slightly different situations / states between Union and Subtract options.

pp

[ggaliens]

Micheus ...

do you see a particular problem with ...

OPERATION A [B]

Read as ... pick operation ... pick set of bodies A ... then optionally pick set of bodies B.

I see no downside to asking user to supply operation first. I'm not worried about adding a subordinate or popup menu of "UNION, INTERSECT, SUBTRACT, SPLIT, IMPRESSION" ... and then you pick A ... and then maybe you pick B.

PP : Yes ... there is probably a problem with UNDO states.

[micheus]

I see no downside to asking user to supply operation first.

I just think that would be better if user could use the same way used for any other Wings operation.
We already use to select something, select an action and provide any other information needed.

I'm not sure about how complex this can be to manage "programmatically", but that is how I "saw" it:
user pick the initial objects;
user pick an option;
you store these selection for A "group";
you ask the user for pick new selections;
user pick other objects;
user must hit RMB to finish command;
you store these selection for B "group";
you make any consistence check before proceed;
you make the union of group A (if needed);
you make the union of group B (if needed);
then you execute the selected operation by using the latest two "grouped" objects.

[ggaliens]

Try a new Release ... let me know if you think headed in a better direction or not.

NO HARD-EDGES via Carve in this release. We be re-added soon.

[oort]

ggaliens,
Can you release a new booleans tar file as well. I don't see a new file for that yet.

Thanks,
oort

[ggaliens]

Oort ... I'd prefer to wait until new idea RE BOOLEAN are reworked completely.

It takes more effort to make the ala-carte tarball for BOOLEAN and I might have a few more iterations to go.

I think of the rest of the plugins adjunct to BOOLEAN as a "LABORITORY" I can use in case something about BOOLEAN goes ODD-BALL. That's why it is manifoldLAB.

I will re TARBALL once I get to BOOLEAN 4.0 or something like that.

Why can't you test with the snapshot style ?

---

Code:

    { "Boolean Union (CSG)" ,    union,  "Boolean Union" } ,
        { "Boolean Subtract (CSG)" , subtract,  "Boolean Subtract" } ,
        { "Boolean Intersect (CSG)" , intersect,  "Boolean Intersect" } ,
        { "Boolean Subtract++ (CSG)" ,    split,  "Boolean Subtract++ : Subtract + Intersection == Impression " } ,
        { "Boolean Differences (CSG)" , differences,  "Boolean Intersect Inverse (CSG)" } ,
        { "Volume Information",  volume,  "Volume info" }

---

It feels substantially stronger than what I had a week ago. These the menu items of things to do with Booleans.

[oort]

ggaliens,
I was just thinking I would keep testing the standalone version.... I just downloaded the full manifoldlab that you updated approx 44 minutes ago.

Yes, I think it is much better now. For subtraction you might want to change the command line info from "Select second bodies" to "Select subtraction bodies" or something else since those bodies do the subtracting from the other bodies.

For Union you might want to change "Select second bodies" to "Select additional bodies" or something else since those bodies will also be added to the final object.

I think you are almost there... of course my testing is not as detailed as what you will get from puzzledpaul...

Thanks for all the work you have done on this.
oort