Michael,
re some of your responses in the past regarding these types of issues, and other modeling kernels like acis and parasolids with many years and man hours working them....

In many cases what you will be doing is adjusting MoI to be "adaptive" in various area's, to change tolerances and such in real time to have these things complete as they MAY in other apps. Lets call it for the moment, "Dumbing down" the model. When MoI starts to do this is when I will ask for some sort of tick, or label, or notice that this is happening. More the tick that I could allow or disallow it as I would want to know when my geometry is being altered to work, or the operation is being altered to work with my poor geometry. With some of the higher end apps, and possibly MoI in the future, there can be analytical tools for me to know and check/change this, but until then, this would be my request from MoI.

Burr

Hi Michael,

>>>>>It looks like in your particular example here, those sweeps have somewhat lower accuracy and have a slight undulation to them<<<<


My bad. My quick example was made too quick. I will just need to accept that MOI cannot boolean these types.

>>>>>This is because the 2 curves are not the same length:

sweep rails=

490.562480799042

504.98067008109<<<<<<<




Sounds like you have serious problems with your software.

I have just verified the sweep curves, and checked them also in Rhino, and both are 486.7419mm in length.

Well Manz...

If you check the file I posted, out of MoI, it was done with your solid, Your curves, and booleaned better than the file you originally posted! So I am wondering where your problem is? Maybe need some practice? :O

See you cant say it wont when I just did!

Sounds like your other package is misleading you into thinking everything is OK.

Hi Burr, yeah I'm pretty conservative about modifying the model. If I ever do make something that would involve making major modifications to the model I would certainly also have some way to disable that.

It is normal for some kinds of things to be altered in certain ways in very small distances though, for example when joining 2 surfaces it is normal that they will join together to get one common shared edge even if their original edges are only within 0.001 units (or slightly larger in the case of join) nearby each other, rather than only joining things that are 100% completely exactly the same at a common edge.

That very small level of modification is normal with NURBS solid modeling, since many times surfaces can be created by a kind of adaptive fitting procedure that refines a surface result until it is accurate to that 0.001 units tolerance value.

So when I find ways to improve a model but keep it within that tolerance level of accuracy, that would be a more normal kind of alteration.

- Michael

Hi Steve,

> I will just need to accept that MOI cannot boolean these types.

Yes, there is currently a bug in the surface/surface intersection mechanism when 2 tubular things cross each other and intersect at a single top "crown point".

I think it will be possible for it to be improved in the future.

But for now the easiest way is to have a slight alteration in the tubes so that they do not intersect in that particular way - your lower accuracy sweep result happens to be one method that will do that, making a slight difference in the tube radius values is another way.

- Michael