> Hi Michael. I hope you don't think I'm knocking Moi in any way.
Hi Jonah, not at all. I just sometimes see the attitude out there in general that Rhino is all-powerful in modeling and MoI has only a tiny fraction of the power. It's easy for things to be perceived in that way since it is certainly true that there are a lot of functions in Rhino that MoI does not do.
This was just a chance for me to illustrate that things are more complex than a simple "Rhino = powerful, MoI = not powerful" type of generalization.
The tolerance in MoI is 0.001.
That's very interesting that adjusting the tolerance makes it work in Rhino4. But I can't see any reason why it should be necessary - the parts that are touching are very precisely aligned, the overlapping surfaces are exact duplicates of one another (just one is trimmed down) and the edges that are overlapping all come from the same initial curve...
I did an experiment with reconstructing the surfaces and solids completely within Rhino4 from the original curves, to see if that made any difference. However, I was unable to complete all the steps because the boolean intersection between the top slab and the sphere failed in Rhino4 (attached here also), it's another one that works in MoI and also in Rhino3 as well. This intersection failure does not seem to get fixed by adjusting the tolerance like the previous one...
- Michael
|
