Boolean Results...Is this common?

[Michael Emo]

I drew SPLINE1 in TOP VIEW. I made sure to CLOSE SPLINE.

 

I applied EXTRUDE MODIFIER to SPLINE1 to create my wall.

 

I drew SPLINE2 in FRONT VIEW. I made sure to CLOSE SPLINE.

 

I applied EXTRUDE MODIFIER to SPLINE2 to create my window area.

 

I converted SPLINE2 to EDITABLE MESH. (also tried editable POLY w/ same result).

 

After BOOLEAN, to remove window area from the wall......I end up with this. See the odd line coming from the inside corner to the outside corner? Why is this happening. Doesn't seem normal from tutorials I've seen on the net regarding the Boolean function.

 

Can anyone lend a suggestion?

 

Using basic Max8.

[ajvbochove]

Try the small building tutorials on http://www.tbmax.net/

[bigroo]

Why not just add an AEC window which subtracts the space for you?

[Brian Smith]

That always happens...it's just showing a new edge of 2 new faces. If your graphic card supports it you can go to Customize > Viewports and turn off this option of showing these face edges.

[vodka79]

Why not just add an AEC window which subtracts the space for you?

 

Isn't it applicable to AEC walls only? He is using extrude from the plans.

[Brian Smith]

this has to happen with any boolean on any object...you just might not see the new edges being created because of your display settings

[Michael Emo]

Thanks for your responses. It doesn't seem right though.

 

I tried the Display settings which seems to be the same as hitting F4. I added another screen grab showing how this is an actual line.

 

I don't want to use AEC windows because all of the window designs in my model are very custom. And it seems to be an extra step if I have to create an AEC Window, just so it will Boolean correctly, so I can then delete the AEC Window and draw my own. I've already created a bunch of boxes for my windows.

 

I'm using the technique found in ArchiCD 1 tutorials for creating windows in a structure. He creates a mesh out of one box, then attaches all of them, then Booleans at the same time for the wall openings. But this same effect doens't seem to be happening in his model.

 

Please note that I physically moved the vertex to overexagerate the fact that the edge exists.

[sterealkey]

that is quite normal Michael, it always happens.

 

I always used to see it in Max, but Ive recently upgraded to Max 9 and it doesnt show that anymore.

 

In max 9 theyve also added the Pro Boolean function which also helps the mesh to not freak out.

 

Hope this helps. Which version of max are you running?

[Michael Emo]

Thanks! Your right in that it always seems to do it no matter what I try. Just seems like an unclean way. I am on Max 8. It seems Pro Boolean is available for this so I go download it.

 

Does it replace 'Boolean' or install seperately? If it doesn't replace, why would we need a 'Pro' and 'Non-pro' method?

 

I also checked out those tutorials at tbmax. Other than the fact he stores each one as a flash, and then stores those in webpage with lots of files in every zip, it's not bad. I am watching a few now.

 

Thanks everyone!

[only3d]

about 'pro'- it doesnt replace it, its an addition. u can find it as a plug-in in autodesk site.

 

about booleans- yes it does (almost) allways happen like that. thats why i dont recommend using booleans as a modeling technique. the 'pro' plug on the other hand is perfect and (again almost) flawless.

 

about y we need a "non-pro" version as u called it- we dont need it, its just what max had before they bought the plug from 'N-POWER'. -it is the autodesk way: if u cant fix it.. buy it..

 

last thing but most important!- since i adopted this method i hardly use booleans all together: take your small rectangle and attach it to your bigger 1 (using edit spline) and then extrude it. by far easier, "lighter", and best results. it sounds like youre working way too hard for just a simple "hole in the wall"..

 

good luck

[Brian Smith]

about booleans- yes it does (almost) allways happen like that. thats why i dont recommend using booleans as a modeling technique. the 'pro' plug on the other hand is perfect and (again almost) flawless.

 

yes it does happen like that...but you're implying that it's a problem, and it shouldn't be....there are plenty of ways that booleans will not work the way you want them to if not used properly, but when done right they should always work...i haven't really even looked at power boolean yet because booleans work so good for me now

 

now if there is strange shading going on...ie, if you see the edge of the 2 faces when rendered, adding the smooth modifier will fix that (which actually overides the automatic smoothing that comes with primitives). a lot of people think that some compound objects look funny until they realize that it's because of the auto smoothing applied

[manta]

My question is why did they keep regular booleans, and pro, why not just get rid of the old one, the new one works the same way, its not like someone is going to have to relearn anything...

[daniohayon]

a lot of people think that some compound objects look funny until they realize that it's because of the auto smoothing applied

 

 

...including round primitives? Like a box cut out of a sphere?

[Brian Smith]

cant tell from that picture

[jsf]

Michael Wrote

 

I'm using the technique found in ArchiCD 1 tutorials for creating windows in a structure. He creates a mesh out of one box, then attaches all of them, then Booleans at the same time for the wall openings. But this same effect doens't seem to be happening in his model.

 

 

The part about attaching the three boxes is right. But before you make the Boolean Subtraction in Max, highlight your wall object and convert it to and editable poly. While looking at your wall in elevation go to the modify tab and use QuickSlice to divide it in to segments. Turn the object snaps on, then click the top left and top right of the box that will be subtracted for the hole. This will create a horizonntal segment in the wall that follows the top of the enventual opening. Click the bottom left and bottom right corner to make a similar horzontal segment along the bottom of the window. For the vertical segments in the wall object do the same thing, click the left top then left bottom corner (of the box that will be subtracted for the hole), and so on.

 

Once you have divided up the wall so that there is a polygon everywhere you plan to subtract a box you should end up with a clean mesh that doesn't have any missing trianges.

 

This may seem like a lot of work but with some practice you will get quicker. The method is fairly reliable and gives you a workable mesh that is easy to move using snaps. The nPower boolean will give you a mesh that is hard to snap to and will not be as clean if you convert it to a mesh or poly later on.

 

I hope this answers you orginal question.

[only3d]

did anyone read my reply?

 

y get tangled up with all of this instead of making it simple and without any boolean ops?

 

and about adding the smooth modifier i dont think its such a good idea. almost sure it will mess up your geometry..

[Brian Smith]

did anyone read my reply?

 

y get tangled up with all of this instead of making it simple and without any boolean ops?

 

and about adding the smooth modifier i dont think its such a good idea. almost sure it will mess up your geometry..

 

On,

With all due respect, you're complaining about a feature because you apparently aren't getting it to work right. I use booleans as much as any feature in Max and i simply cant do without them. They are fantastic and I NEVER have any issues with them since learning how to do them properly. It's not a good idea to stray others away from one of the best Max features just cuz you get poor results. And the smooth effect will not 'mess up your geometry' at all. In fact, if you reread my post, i said you can apply the Smooth modifier to quickly do away with the smoothing that is automaticallly applied by default.

[only3d]

hi brian

i have to admit that i dont understand nor do i appreciate the personal knockdown from u.

 

im familiar with quite a few modeling methods and all i said is that there are better ways to subtract an element from an object (especially in the case that was brought up here). cant a guy recommend something? isnt that what we all do here? of course its a subjective opinion, but i am intitled to one.

its not like i said "those bloody booleans.. we oughta hang 'em all!!"

plus if there wasnt a problem then the poor guy wouldnt have brought the subject to begin with.

u make it sound like im some kind of lame guy which cant press 'pick operand b'. if your happy with it then fine by me, i just know more people besides me that are unhappy with the old booleans (by the way u should check the new one before u wave it off)

 

all and all its all about personal opinions here, theres no need to knock anyone down for it (especially if he wasnt rude about it or absolutely undefinitly and amazingly wrong..)

 

peace man, take care

[Brian Smith]

sorry, didnt mean for it to be a knock down but rereading it i can definitely agree with you. i rarely get personal which would only happen if someone insulted me so again sorry, didnt mean to insult. it's actually just that this very particular command gets soooo much bad rap and similar comments... so many people seem to hate it and it was just like the bizzillenth time i heard it...peach

[only3d]

cheers mate..

im all for forgive and forget

[plastic]

using boolean with polygon models is like building a paper model and then sticking a knife into it to cut out holes.

it only works in very simple situations, it's ugly, it's a mess.

 

it's very different with mathematically clean geometry (not triangulated), as solids/nurbs.

 

that said, the diagonal line is just a triangulation/visible edge situation. it's not an error, every poly mesh is build with triangles.

you can make all edges visible with the "edit mesh" modifier, you can also use "auto edge" to visually clean up the edges, it would also fix this situation.

[Brian Smith]

using boolean with polygon models is like building a paper model and then sticking a knife into it to cut out holes.

it only works in very simple situations, it's ugly, it's a mess.

 

Marc,

i just dont understand why you and so many others seem to hate the boolean. i would love to see an example of what messy results you are talking about.

[only3d]

ok brian now you've asked for it!!!

just kidding..

 

here's a basic example of what im (we're..) talking about-

notice how clean the results are with 'pro', plus the added value of subtracting as many objects as u want in 1 operation!

 

let me know what u think now

[Brian Smith]

i still dont see the problem because both objects will look the same when rendered...sure it might look cleaner in the viewport and if that's a necessity, then i guess pro is the way to go...i'm not discounting anything about the pro version...i'm just saying that boolean works fine (at least in the rendering)...unless of course you don't have dense enough mesh objects

[only3d]

yes they will render the same, but what if i need to continue working with 'edit mesh' or something and then i have a hole stack of broken polygons(!)u still think it will be the same? or even more common- assigning materials via mat id.. these are basic procedures that go much smoother thanks to 'pro'. well yeh u can apply 'optimize' on it or some other ways to "fix" the problems boolean creates but why?

we are all very technology oriented people and advancement is key word in our occupation (or hobby doesnt matter) and sentiments are not an issue (nomatter how faithfully devoted was the tool of your choise before-hand)

so why stick to an older version of a tool that lost its edge? didnt u switch to max 6 7 & 8 eventhough max 3 was a heck of a machine? (i know it was my first! ). i personally look for new tools plugs and techniques that will make my life easier all the time (its almost an obsession by now..) but ofcourse its up to u in the end, and whatever ur comfy with.

 

thats it for the subject (i think..)

take care and have fun