Better control of surface merging

runxel

We urgently need much better control of surface merging.

Everybody knows the issue: You model e.g. two beams, made out of the same BMAT – boom! they merge unintentionally, leading to very strange workarounds of either duplicating all the BMats (not helping often enough in more complex situations) or model pieces a thousand of a millimeter away (BAD practice as it introduces dimensional errors later on).

We need to be able to select for each tool if they should surface join on touch or not!

In the meantime it would be nice if at least the proper funtioning of the special layer intersection group "0" (zero) would be restored.

If a layer has its intersection group set to 0 none of the elements in it should surface join even with each other.

Eduardo Rolon

+100000 to layer 0 means no intersection…

thesleepofreason

Never understood the logic of having intersection as default as it makes modelling beyond a square room a pain to handle - would make much more sense to control what should intersect rather than what shouldn't.

NateLumen

@Eduardo Rolon can you explain this a little more?

Barry Kelly

If a layer has an intersection number of 0 (zero), then no elements in that layer will intersect or trim with any other element within that same layer (or any other layer).

However, the similar co-planer surfaces with still join seamlessly.

It seems logical that they should not join either.

Barry.

Eduardo Rolon

@NateLumen See @Barry Kelly 's answer.

scottjm

Yes, a do a not intersect option for 3D elements is a must. For display in 2D and 3D.

Utilising the 0 intersection layer workaround is cumbersome cause it will do it for everything on that layer, which may not be desirable.