Status parameter in GDL cutting commands

[Anonymous]

Hello.
For years I have been wondering what is the meaning
of the "status" parameter in CUTPOLYA and CUTFORM.

In the CUTPOLYA command the manual states:
status: controls the treatment of the generated cut polygons
1: use the attributes of the body for the generated polygons and edges.
2: generated cut polygons will be treated as normal polygons.

What is the "attributes of the body"? What body ? Which body ?

In the CUTPOLYA command you chose either 1 or 2 but
in the CUTFORM command you can have both 1 and 2.

In the CUTFORM command the manual states :
status: Controls the extent of the cutting body and the treatment
of the generated cut polygons and new edges.
status = j1 + 2*j2 + 8*j4 + 16*j5 + 32*j6 + 64*j7 + 128*j8
j1: use the attributes of the body for the generated polygons and edges
j2: generated cut polygons will be treated as normal polygons

j1 and j2 are set independently.

My question is what is the difference between one and two
and why is it one or the other in the CUTPOLYA command
but both can be set in the CUTFORM command ?

Thank you
Peter Devlin

[James Murray]

One of the options means the new geometry created by the cut will use the attributes of the thing being cut.

The other means the new geometry will use the attributes of the cutting shape.

It is analogous to the 'Inherit Attributes of Operator' option in Solid Ops.

Which is which? I can't remember. The language in the manual is very mystical as you can see, and I end up trying each one to make sure.

Unless you had a pen directive before the CUT thing, you would never see a difference; the cutting thing and the affected geometry would have the same attributes anyway.

WALLHOLE uses it too, which is nice because you can make a wall opening with a pen different from the wall.

I don't think the 'both' in CUTFORM actually works that way, but I would have to check on that.

CUTPLANE used to impose attributes automatically, with no status option. Then in AC10 it stopped doing so, still no option. That actually broke some of my stuff and I had to switch to CUTFORM.

Update: 1 uses the target attributes, 2 uses the cutting attributes. For CUTFORM, 64 makes invisible contours.

[Anonymous]

Hello James,
Thanks for posting back.
I guess the reason I never could see the difference between 1 and 2 when
using CUTPOLYA is that I always set the material and pen for the
CUTPOLYA the same as the pen and material of the element being cut.

The first time I used CUTFORM I set j1 to 1 and j2 to 0
thinking that the two were mutually exclusive as in CUTPOLYA and
when I viewed my object in section the object appeared
hollow and some of it's surfaces were transparent or disappeared.
Setting j2 to 2 fixed things.

You say in your update that "1 uses the target attributes, 2 uses the cutting attributes."
so I'm wondering why when I set j2 to 0 I get the
strange appearance in section and have tell CUTFORM to do both. ???

Thanks,
Peter Devlin

[James Murray]

Peter wrote:
Hello James,
Thanks for posting back.
I guess the reason I never could see the difference between 1 and 2 when
using CUTPOLYA is that I always set the material and pen for the
CUTPOLYA the same as the pen and material of the element being cut.

Yes, it's something you have to want.

The first time I used CUTFORM I set j1 to 1 and j2 to 0
thinking that the two were mutually exclusive as in CUTPOLYA and
when I viewed my object in section the object appeared
hollow and some of it's surfaces were transparent or disappeared.
Setting j2 to 2 fixed things.

I'm not observing that, but I'm not trying anything fancy, just CUTFORM on PRISM_. Sounds buggy. I get the proper result from status=1 and status=2. It will take status=3 (1+2; j1 & j2 both on), but it treats it as status=1. So if that clears up the section, do it.

This is a wicked confusing shape. We have visibility controls in the status, and in the polygon masks. The polygon masks seem to win out. The j7 and j8 status switches can't make anything invisible that the masks intend to show.

Reminds me, I really wish we could see cutting shapes in the 3D view.

[Anonymous]

Hello James,
You have me a little confused. You refer to "The j7 and j8 status switches".
In my GDL manual the status numbers only go from j1 up to j6.
Also, I don't see how the status codes control edge visibility.
They are controlled by the mask values as you say.

Yes, I too wish one could see the CUTFORM cutting shape in 3D.
Of course, with CUTPOLYA one could just substitute PRISM_
for CUTPOLYA and see the shape but no easy way with CUTFORM.
Thanks,
Peter Devlin

[James Murray]

Peter wrote:
You refer to "The j7 and j8 status switches".
In my GDL manual the status numbers only go from j1 up to j6.

Hm, I have them under CUTFORM -> status as far back as 9.

[Anonymous]

Hello James,
You are right. I was looking at the GDL manual for AC 8.1.
I just checked in the GDL manual for AC 10 and sure enough
The CUTFORM command has been extended and has j7 and j8 status values.
Just goes to show everything changes and one has to keep checking.

Thanks for alerting me to this change.
Peter Devlin

[Anonymous]

Has anyone ever seen a COONS with working edge line status?

j3 (4) : edges of the 1st boundary (x1, y1, z1) are visible.
j4 (8) : edges of the 2nd boundary (x2, y2, z2) are visible.
j5 (16) : edges of the 3rd boundary (x3, y3, z3) are visible.
j6 (32) : edges of the 4th boundary (x4, y4, z4) are visible.

Would benefit a lot of this, but has been forced to cut the xtra lines away with CUTPOLY, CUTPLANE or CUTFORM.

[Anonymous]

Juha wrote:
Has anyone ever seen a COONS with working edge line status?

Unfortunately these mask values never worked. Contour lines are always visible, when j7 (64) = 0.
GS is aware of that.

[Anonymous]

An update on the CUTFORM command.
In the AC 10 version of this command
you can set the status value j2 to zero
and the object shows correctly in section
unlike the AC 8.1 version of this command.
Peter Devlin