Thanks Tree - some initial tests seem to indicate that it is actually a different problem than the one mentioned here, so I'm glad you sent it to me.

I will be digging into it to try and figure out what change in v2 broke this case.

- Michael

Hi Tree, I was able to track down this boolean problem with the gear and the box that you posted previously here.

It behaved differently in v2 versus v1 due to a small change in the surface/surface intersection tolerance. I've got it tuned up for the next v2 release.

Thanks for reporting the problem.

- Michael

Great! Is the surface/surface intersection tolerance something that can be or will be able to be controlled by the user? In the cases where booleans do fail and no result is given or pieces just vanish, would it make sense to give the user control somehow to adjust how it performs the boolean? Sometimes any result would be better than none. Although the opposite can also be said to be true.

Hi Tree,

> Is the surface/surface intersection tolerance something that
> can be or will be able to be controlled by the user?

That's theoretically possible, but it's a rather arcane esoteric value for people to adjust, and it is easy to adjust it improperly if you do not fully understand what it is controlling.

Things tend to behave really strangely if it is too loose, you end up with kind of saggy intersections.


> In the cases where booleans do fail and no result is given or pieces
> just vanish, would it make sense to give the user control somehow
> to adjust how it performs the boolean?

Well, part of the update is that if it failed or if there are naked edges in the result when there were none in the inputs, it will repeat the boolean again with an automatically tightened tolerance. It will go through that cycle a few times.

- Michael

Almost looks like a PBW (Earthsiege / Starsiege) :)

http://www.angelfire.com/sd2/nightcabbage/Stuff/3dsmax/pbw2.jpg