Hi Michael,
I stumble again and again to new problems.

As long as I boole out only 1 or 3 spheres at once, all works fine.
As soon as I select all spheres and try to boole them out, the main object dissapears.

Too much calculation for my MacPro (28 gig Ram, 8core 3,2 ghz)
or too much calculation for MOI?

Sorry for the constant annoying questions!

Mike

by the way:

If I make a sweep the curves do (2 circles) not have to be exact on the profile-curve.

Would it be possible to get the same behavier for the array-on-spline command?
And add maybe an extra "offset"-value field?

Now I have to place the sphere exactly on the spline.

thanks
Mike

Hi Mike

I do not understand your question.
Did you use arraygem command?

Edit: Did not understand boolean difference was wanted...

Hi,

not sure what you mean, but I wanted
to cut-out (with boolean difference) all spheres at once.
And this didn't work.
I have to cutout the spheres in
maybe 10 or 20 steps.

regards
MIke

You must post your file 3DM if you want some explanations ;)

Hi Mike

Boolean Difference in one step worked fine for me.

You can use the style menu to select ALL the red balls at once, in the second step of the boolean diff.

Used arraygem to place the balls. The bottom ball also has a circle around it.

Hi mike,

Just take a look at the image from bemfarmer (answer 6).
The sphere's in this image have the seam(the curve on the spherical surface),
oriented perpendicular in respect of the targed surface.

Just rotate the sphere you want to array about 90 degrees.

Hi Mike, like Pilou mentions above, please post the 3DM model file as an attachment here instead of just a screenshot.

With the actual 3DM model file I can then do various things like examine your geometry looking for issues by zooming in and rotating to different angles and stuff like that which is all not possible to do with just a screenshot image.

Also if you are running into a bug then it helps if I can do the same steps over here to repeat the problem so I can test solutions - I can do that if you attach the 3DM model file of your actual objects but I can't do that with just a screenshot.

So there are numerous ways that it helps to be able to access the 3DM model file that has the objects in it that you are asking your question about - with only a screenshot to go by often times I just have to take a wild guess about what you might be running into.


How was it that you placed the spheres onto the surface, was it using the Flow command? There is a bug in the Flow command when transforming an object that has a pinched together "pole" type zone like a sphere does, so if you used Flow to position those spheres then that would be the problem - the spheres in that case are basically damaged in that pole area with a little bit of a self overlapping area and stuff with self intersections causes problems with the "inside" and "outside" portions of the volume not being defined very clearly anymore.

If I had the 3DM model file to look at though I would be able to see if that was actually your problem or not though, it could be something totally different.

EDIT: I guess that was not it since you mention array curve in your second message which I just saw. Is your base object a closed solid or an open surface? That's again another thing that I would be able to check on if I was able to load in the actual 3DM model file with your objects in it.

- Michael

Hi Mike,

> And add maybe an extra "offset"-value field?

If you locate your object at some distance away from the path curve, then array curve will maintain that offset distance as it moves the object around the curve.

But if you want some more control over that it might be better to do an offset of the curve itself and then use the offset curve as the path - that can help to see more what is going on with the offset shape.

- Michael

Hi,

thanks for your replies!

I'm sorry, I already deleted that testfile.

I now think, as you suggested, that the rotation of the spheres
caused that problem. I didn't care of the orientation/rotation
when I arred them along the path.
Will try that again.

And Michael, the main object was a "closed solid" !
This, by the way, was one of the most important tips
you gave me, that solved all of my previous "fillet"-problems.

So, little by little, I'm getting closer to all
the brillant modelling-possibilitys of MOI!

thanks
Mike