[Bf-committers] Carve vs. Bmesh booleans

Mikhail Rachinskiy mikhail.rachinskiy at gmail.com
Thu Apr 19 14:08:14 CEST 2018


> Sure, you can declare everything being incorrect input that your tool
can't handle properly. Or you just can make it work better.
> ...
> These edges are wrong, they don't belong there. And if the plane is
subdivided then there are even faces generated not belonging there.

I might have failed to properly explain my thoughts on this.
I'm against that boolean tool performing mesh cleanup operation on
resulting geometry. If Howard would be able to improve boolean algorithm
that it would not produce loose edges, then I can only encourage him to do

> I wonder what makes you so certain that the Bmesh way is the way how a
boolean tool is supposed to work?
> I'm using the cutter plane approach to discretize elements for scientific
physics simulations.
> It's inconsistent to ignore the normal of a plane and to make the
decision of which half of the mesh is to be removed depending on the target
object matrix rather than on the normals of the operator object.

In this case it is a personal preference, since I never use cutter plane
approach and I think that boolean tool that does not take into account
normals, might be better when it comes to working with volumes.
But I have no strong opinion on this since before BMesh solver, I was
mostly satisfied with Carve.

But again, does cutter plane approach really belong to the boolean tool?
3ds Max has a separate tool for that called "ProCutter". It uses mesh planes
similar to the cutter plane approach, but in this case planes can intersect
with each other and object would be cut accordingly with those
intersections. It looks very tasty.

Mikhail Rachinskiy

More information about the Bf-committers mailing list