Hi Jesper,

> Regarding your suggestions for trimming/separate & boolean subtract I'm not quite clear about the difference
> and what exactly you suggest but I'll take a look at it and see if I can learn something new.

So for this part, it's a general technique that if you want to modify some small portion of a kind of complex object (like in this case you wanted to slice off just those legs and not really modify anything else), it can reduce the complexity of what's going on to separate out that particular chunk of the object into a separate surface, then do some surface modeling work on it like trimming it with a line, and then once you're done you can rejoin it back to the main piece again.

That method can get things done even in the presence of some kind of degenerate geometry or whatever type of thing might be confusing the more "higher level" operations like booleans.

So in a case like this that would mean some steps like - select these 2 surfaces that make up one of the legs:



Now run Edit > Separate - that will break those selected faces off into a completely separate object. You can now hide the other main object and just work for a little bit on only this much more simple object:




There's a lot less stuff that can possibly go wrong on this kind of object. Once you have finished manipulating this one piece doing booleans or Trim or whatever (Trim is a surface modeling method, it just cuts surfaces up, it's less complex in general that the booleans. The booleans are kind of like a "high level" trim that incorporates Trim + automatically picking pieces to discard or keep based on which volume they are in followed by joining those pieces back up), and then once you're done select your new piece and the original big object and use Join to glue them back together into a solid.

You don't always need to do that - it's just a technique that can possibly be used to simplify the amount of stuff that any particular operation has to deal with, so it can get things done when you are running into problems.

If you're not running into any problems then you would just want to stick more with using booleans, they can get things done more quickly. But they can get confused in the presence of self intersecting geometry.

- Michael

Good morning Michael (early morning here in Denmark),

... thanks again for explaining and illustrating what you did and what you look for in cleaning up a model. I've read it now and notice that the information is a bit more advanced than my current "insights" into modelling so I look forward to re-reading it in the days to come. It seems to me that the thoughts and tips in your text and images are very useful - i just have to grasp it including maybe changing my way of working with the models.

Thanks again!

Greetings,

Jesper

Hi again Michael (& Moi forums),

I've now had a bit more time to look at what you have given me for feedback. Unfortunately, I made an initial size "mis-assessment" so I've had to re-work the model more or less from scratch. This also made me change some of the less optimum solutions in the first model, however, also means that I can't directly use the model you (Michael & Brian) helpfully looked at for me.... :-(

... Yet, in the new model I've tried to implement some of the understandings I got from your suggestions and the model looks fine enough to me. There's might be an issue, though, and that is that when I (to make sure that the bottom surface is completely level) delete some of the bottom faces (see attached image) and try to re-insert them using construct -> planar - then in the outer ring a new bottom face is not inserted. I get the message that there are e.g. "5 edges" but no new face is made. I wonder if this is important as the face was in place before I deleted it?

My main consideration really is that I'm going to have the model (relatively) expensively 3D printed - and the last time I printed a similar model (a more or less "positive" version of this model which is a molding form, i.e. the "inverse") the bottom surface got curved from side to side. The printing company (shapeways) didn't know why it happened except that something might have gone amiss in the printing process. Before printing the former model - and also before sending this one off to printing I did a second check in Meshlab and both look(ed) as they are supposed to do.

To that end might I ask you to quickly look at the bottom face and see if it's level? The way my eyes look - maybe at this point in learning time - it seems to be fine to me (no lines sticking out) but since I can't make the planar function work I wonder if it's not level?

You don't have to make it level for me - I'd "just" appreciate knowing what isn't.

Many Greetings,

Jesper


Comment to the image:

planar_1: Outer ring won't re-make a surface after being deleted.

Hi Jesper, over here when I delete the bottom faces and run Planar on them, I get a planar surface just fine. So your bottom is very nice and flat.

I used a script that selects all naked edges, the one that you can set up on a keyboard shortcut as described here:
http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=4869.5

I think most likely you did not get a result because you probably missed selecting some little edges - there are a few small areas where you've got a kind of micro shelf in the shape, and these form a few small edges on the bottom. If you did not select those when doing the Planar you would not have had a totally closed loop going. Planar needs the curves you select to be all coplanar and also they must form a closed loop.

The little shelf area are in these spots here:





That's really small in size though, about 0.01mm long, probably less than the printing resolution itself so I doubt it will be perceptible in the print. But it makes for a small edge in the bottom loop which is hard to see and select unless you are zoomed in pretty closely. And if you do not select it when running planar it means you are not making a closed loop which is probably why Planar did not work for you.


When you go to generate the STL file to send for printing, you will probably want to use the "Divide larger than" parameter in the meshing options that pop up to avoid having any large triangles that span a large distance across the model. Like for example put in Divide larger than = 3 so that any triangle larger than 3mm will get additionally subdivided. That then helps avoid artifacts from having triangles on something with slight curvature that might span a longer distance.

- Michael

Hi Michael,

& thanks again for your feedback & help!

I found the tiny edge you indicate on your picture in the model and when I selected this edge as well I was able to make the surface without any further issues. :-)

So, after checking things again I sent it off to printing today. So now I look forward to actually molding my objects inside the model ...

Thanks again & the best for your weekend (when it comes to you in your part of the world).

Jesper