I have been using MOI v2.0 now since the beta program and I really love it. It is my tool of choice and gradually I am moving my models across. And it's a good opportunity to refine and optimise them ;-)

But it occurred to me that there *might* have been updates and/or bug fixes to scripts or anything else since v2.0 was released. But I haven't found anything yet.

Q1 - Are any updates available?
Q2 - Are any planned?

And if so - how do I access them?

For example, there is some inconsistent behaviour in the Boolean functions - the initial use causes different results from subsequent use in the same session. Now this is minor but was wondering if it has been fixed? There are probably other things that I haven't found yet.

Any plans with this Michael?

Roger

Hi Roger, there is one update patch here:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=3926.4

That adds a new function to .lwo export for use with Modo, and there are actually a couple of minor bug fixes in that patch as well.

But in general I try to avoid doing very major changes in an update patch because there is always a danger of making things worse with new bugs happening as a consequence from changes. This is particularly easy to happen with trying to mess with pretty sensitive areas such as booleans or filleting.

This is a lot different than with a beta - with beta releases it's a lot easier for me to make changes, with non-beta final release it tends to be better for me to be much more conservative about making changes.


> For example, there is some inconsistent behaviour
> in the Boolean functions - the initial use causes different
> results from subsequent use in the same session. Now this
> is minor but was wondering if it has been fixed?

I currently don't have any examples of this behavior, and its not very feasible to attempt a fix without being able to test the results of the fix. Just trying to fiddle with things sort of on a guess or vague description is a pretty easy way for regressions and new bugs to happen.

Do you have any example files that you can send to me so that I can try to reproduce the problem over here?

- Michael

OK thanks Michael.

The attached file "Bool_Test" shows what I mean.

If you highlight the extruded square bar and also highlight the first extruded cylinder and select "Boolean -> Union" in Moi - and then remove the pieces of the cylinder outside the bar you will see that no piece of the first cylinder is left inside the bar.

And if you then repeat the procedure with the second cylinder then you will find that there is a portion of the cylinder left inside the bar. This is the behaviour that I expect.

This is how I am drilling holes in solids and it gets a bit tedious when I have many of them ;-)

Any thoughts?

Roger

Maybe box is a solid
cylinders are surfaces ?

Because your cylinders are surfaces not solids, the first boolean union converts the result to a joined surface. The second union is between a joined surface and a surface, so it doesn't work the same. It just slices the cylindrical surfaces. Try closing the cylinders into solids first. In general, the boolean operations work with solids. Use the Trim tool for surfaces.

hi roger


well, after the FIRST UNION, you will end up with a bundle of joined surfaces(not a solid) and thats why the SECOND UNION behaves different.




why don't you use BOOLEAN DIFF to cut out the holes? you don't even need the extruded cylinder..plain circles will do the job.


best wishes,
marco

or just draw a circle(s) above the box (not touch) and use Boolean Merge ;)
Just kill the Cylinder(s) inside created !

Hi Roger the comments above are all correct - this is not actually a bug, it's a consequence of using some non-solid open surfaces in your boolean operations.

The booleans are more oriented around working on volumes, so you'll get more predictable results with them if you solidify the objects you are trying to boolean together.

In your particular case, when you do the first boolean you have one solid object (the block part) but since you were combining it with a non-solid open surface object the result of that is not a solid and that's why the second operation behaves differently because there is no volume for any piece in that second operation.

There are a variety of ways you can get better results - as others mentioned above you don't actually need to extrude things like this in order to cut holes, just draw a circle curve and use that non-extruded circle as the cutting object in boolean difference and it will drill a hole.

Or another method is to leave the "Cap ends" option enabled when extruding shapes like this - that will create a solid from the extrusion. (The "Cap ends" option actually should be on by default, is there a particular reason why you wanted to disable it?)

You can also solidify the existing cylinder pieces by selecting them and running the Construct > Planar command to cap their open planar ends and make them into solids.

Once those cylinder pieces are solids instead of open surfaces, if you then repeat your Boolean Union steps you should get the result that you were expecting.


Another tip is that if you do want to work with open surfaces, you may want to use the Edit>Trim command when cutting one piece by another. The booleans work by trying to maintain solid volumes, but the Trim command works by cutting surfaces and then letting you specifically pick which fragments to discard. You can then follow that by using Join to glue the pieces together if you want. But usually this method of Trim + Join is better to use when working with surface objects that do not have a closed volume to them.

Booleans are kind of like a Trim + Join process but that tries to automatically figure out which pieces to discard by what volume the pieces were inside of.

- Michael

Great - thanks all.

Food for thought - and I will explore all those options.

Roger