"Array-able" boolean operators

[Anonymous]

We had a case today where a client wanted a series of 8" square reveals cut in to an EIFS exterior at about 8' elevation. I suggested that the drafter use a beam or create a profile of the desired size, perform the boolean operation to cut the reveal, and array the operation down the length of the exterior wall. This, of course, did not work. I believe this would be an extremely helpful feature. Any thoughts...?

[Djordje]

Scott wrote:
We had a case today where a client wanted a series of 8" square reveals cut in to an EIFS exterior at about 8' elevation. I suggested that the drafter use a beam or create a profile of the desired size, perform the boolean operation to cut the reveal, and array the operation down the length of the exterior wall. This, of course, did not work. I believe this would be an extremely helpful feature. Any thoughts...?

If you multiplied (arrayed) the profile, and then used the grouped profile as the operator, you would get it.

Placing niche windows would get the same result, albeit in the calculations it would be wrong. A short beam can also punch the wall, if the intersection proprities are correct.

You can kill a fly with an elephant gun

[Anonymous]

In this case, I think writing some lines of GDL to create a parametric object that will be used as a tool to create the holes would be the way to go.

Parametric is the key, in case the client changes his mind once again...

[Anonymous]

How about using one of the new stretchy windows as a starting point? Change the subtype to 3d object. You would use the mullions for reveals. The nice thing is that you can stretch the reveals, so when the client changes things it's a cinch. You could add or remove reveals... er mullions too.

[Geoff Briggs]

In a rare move for me, I'm voting no on this one. There are plenty of ways to do this. I'd like to see SEOs working well all the time and with all object types first.

[James Murray]

Geoff wrote:
I'd like to see SEOs working well all the time and with all object types first.

I agree. I would, however, like to see:

Splitting a target or (more importantly) an operator results in the pieces remaining operators or targets in the existing operation.

Example:

I use hidden slabs to cut my grade mesh, rather than the walls and slabs of the foundation itself. I will occasionally split a cutting slab in order to adjust the excavation depth of one area distinct from another. It would be nice if both pieces kept cutting, instead of having to redo the operation.