Hi Felix - so that really weird looking one is not just a display artifact - that's a bad object that has some problem in its trim curves.

It looks like your base object in this case is a self-intersecting object which folds back over top of itself in some areas, like here:



Objects that have pieces of themselves that fold back over top of themselves will not be able to be handled properly by the booleans - so it's really the input into the booleans in this case that is causing the problem.

The boolean is generating some kind of messed up edge structure when it attempts to figure out how to process the surface/surface intersection calculations in that area - basically when a surface collapses down and then sticks back through itself it no longer has a single consistent outside surface normal, the surface normal is chaotic and one little step away from one area it has a completely opposite normal - this plays havoc with intersection calculations.


> The other thing I don't understand is why there is such an appearing
> different degree of smoothness between the objects after a boolean operation
> (test1.png, left object was boolean union).

The mesh only works with the visible area of surfaces, so when you do a boolean the booleaned result will get meshed differently since with new trim curves on it the active area of the surface is different.

If the active area of the surface happens to just exactly divide down to pieces which are right at the angle tolerance then it will give a rougher appearance.

That particular part is just a display artifact and is something you should just ignore.

Since the display mesher is constantly generating new meshes every time you do any kind of editing, it's very important for it to work very quickly so that you don't spend extra time waiting every time you do a boolean or a fillet or any kind of edit. The tradeoff for not having extra interruptions on every editing operation is that in some particular cases it can give a somewhat rough display.


> For now, the only way to know for sure it's only a display artifact, we have
> to export and render I guess. It would be nice to be able to check this
> inside MOI.

You can just go through the steps of doing an export but then just look at the export mesh which MoI displays when it shows the Meshing options dialog, but then just cancel out and not actually write the file.

See this previous message for how to set up a shortcut key so that you don't have to enter in a filename and can just push 1 key to generate an export mesh and see it on screen:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=4453.6
also:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=4358.2

- Michael

Basically if something just looks slightly angular, then that's very likely a regular display artifact and usually something to just ignore.

If it looks more like things are kind of scribbling outside boundaries, then that's a pretty different thing than just slight angularity and usually scribbles means something is actually wrong with the model most likely in its trim curve structure.

- Michael

Michael,

I check everything again and my original file as 2 solid where I thought there was only one, this is one of the reason why the file I send looks bad, it's missing a part.

But thing get even more complicated, I opened a second instance of Moi and opened my original file and here is what I have:

Moi Instance 1, saved original file




Moi Instance 2, original file



As you can see more clearly in the top view, 2 instances, same file but different objects. I double check by resaving the file in the first instance with the split view below, closing the second instance without saving, started a new instance and reopened the original file. Still get the same as below. I have no clue to understand what's happening here.

Thanks,
Felix

Hi Felix - most likely the piece that looks weird was actually damaged in the original file as well, when you save a file MoI actually has to translate its internal object structures into the OpenNURBS structures which is what actually goes into the 3DM file.

Normally that doesn't really involve making any changes to the data, but it can in the case of objects with damaged or invalid trim curves on them - the 3DM file container will attempt to correct things but if the trim curve structure is really messed up it can potentially look a little different after you save the file and reload it.

Again, this appears to be caused by the base object in your boolean being made up of a self-intersecting surface that folds back over top of itself.

Having any additional object will not fix this - the surface that you see here is not going to work to use in a boolean:



Doing a boolean on that has created an object that is damaged and has a messed up trim curve structure, it will behave weird in several different ways - having it look like things are leaking out of it, and it can be possible for it to look a little different after saving and reloading.

Again, the main problem is that you can't really do booleans with objects that are made up of surfaces that fold back through themselves - surfaces that fold back through themselves will confuse the surface intersector and you'll get weird objects from that.

- Michael

Michael,

as usual, your tips are very useful. To get a pseuso render real quit like that is a great idea, thanks.

I suppose I can shrink (scale down) my second profile such that it doesn't fold on itself like it does now but this will also affect other aspect of the model that I'd prefer not modify if possible. I did this to create the red model kind of thing in the last image I posted. For this first attempt I used an open profile curve to generate the sweep, I was just fooling around and then decide it would be nice to use 2 of these objects and join them with a nice flowing shape to connect them. I realised I needed a symmetric profile curve such that it would be possible to use these profile as well for the connecting part.

Personnaly, I have 2 problems with this models, the first is obviously the self intercecting part and the second is that a real object like this wouldn't have empty space like it's clearly visible in your image (felix_self_intersection3.jpg). I guess my question would be, is how can we design such object without self intersecting part and with no voids? Any suggestion will be helpful, I have no doubt about that.

Thanks,
Felix

Michael,

thanks for the explanation about internal data and saved data. I guess we must avoid self intersecting part at all cost if we don't want to get into trouble.

Thanks,
Felix

Hi Felix, you can actually make a self-intersecting object if you only want to make a render mesh for it, but yeah they need to be avoided if you want to do things that will involve surface/surface intersection calculations with the object such as booleans.

This is certainly a tricky shape to try and make without self-intersection though.

I think you'll have to stop the main sweep something around here:



And then make the rest of it with just the outside half portion of the profile, something like this:




Or maybe you could try only doing a half profile (the outer half) along the entire sweep length and then an inner profile that stops before it folds in on itself, and then do a blend between them to connect them up.

- Michael