exporting in obj or stl is good
blender has no good nurbs …
otherwise the ideal would be to export in step format from moi
I don’t know if there is any addon that reads the step format for blender, I think I saw it for “mechanical blender” … but I never tried it
I see… hmm I’ll try MOI someday out. thanks and it was a good discussion.
Are there any plans at all to have booleans automatically create vertex groups of newly created vertices for modifiers lower in the stack to use? (I’m thinking for bevel and the new triangulate modifier.)
I would like to enable things like bevel-after-boolean somehow, eventually. And the ability to flexibly specify what/how triangulation happens afterwards also seems useful. Whether it be by creating vertex groups or some other method – who knows at this point. First order of business is to get Boolean working reliably and well even, especially as regard to coplanar etc geometry.
Thanks for your work, at this moment its give big improve. Testing modifiers in 2.8 -subd, booleans, new bevel and triangulation modifier https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNb19P945FI&t
Hello,
i was just using Blender 2.8 to work on a vehicle. I was creating a fan for the vehicle. I ran in some issue. I’m not sure if it’s a bug or not. So I ran some test. There are 2 objects. I move the main object with boolean modifier up and down to see if the issue is gone. BUT the issue is not resolved.
The shadow you see is at everywhere. I believe it’s a bug. here’s the picture for you to take a look at.
EDIT 1:
The boolean modifier is “UNION”
Another bug with beveling (CTRL + B). If this was reported, then great. If not.
Here’s a picture:
For your information, sorry about the second post since I cannot post 2 pictures in the same post. There’s nothing I can do about that.
Thanks @Howard_Trickey for your efforts here. I just wanted to add a little to the understanding. Many years ago I worked on a facet modeller similar in representation to Blender. I wrote the code for the Boolean ops. Clean intersections of surfaces which had nice curves of intersection were straightforward and done quite quickly. However, coplanar faces, colinear edges and touching vertices were a big problem. After three years these were not completely resolved. Humans can look at a scene and say how they’d expect the result to look but software has a harder time. Sometimes (in my code) combining clean manifold objects created non-manifold results and that’s no good. We had a thing called “the epsilon factor” where we nudged vertices in different directions to see how the result might change sometimes this improved the result other times it didn’t. A lot of modern software still doesn’t evaluate Boolean operations correctly in all cases. I’m saying all this so that people get a sense of how hard this task is and don’t underestimate the effort required to solve it.
Oh that’s a new information. I had no idea the level of difficult it is. I knew it was that hard… but not that bad. 
interesting. thanks for sharing. I thought other 3D softwares have a good or perfect system of boolean. but It doesn’t seem to be the case.
Thanks PaulMcManus for explaining to others why they should not expect a quick fix on this. I’ve been working for months on it already (spare time).
Xelbayria - that bevel result is unrelated to Boolean, right? You can report it as a bug (see help menu in Blender). But first check if normals are OK. I suspect that’s the problem.
Yeah the normal are just fine. I checked. and I’ll report it as a bug.
EDIT 1: Yes the beveling is unrelated to boolean. I am not sure why it show the result of that issue. and It’s still an issue.
If add mark bevel for boolean modifier, its give dynamic booleans with bevel, like bevel after boolean, but dynamic
Is there a way to alt d a Boolean object without losing the modifier parameter ?
Hello,
I was working on a complex shape and I create a simple shape where every line in the simple shape is matched up with the complex shape. I also used the Boolean with “difference”. Something was wrong, so I ended up investigating and found out the cause.
Here’s the explanation and picture below:
EDIT 1:
Okay. just check to see if I can upload 2 pictures, which is all good. Okay, The “A” have 2 cubes where these lines are not aligned with the other cube’s lines. You can see that it have loop cuts (this is very similar case where my complex shape has). You can look at two pictures on left and right. You’ll see that the right picture show that “A” where boolean is working properly.
The “B” have the opposite idea to what “A” is where two cubes have their lines just perfectly aligned. On the right picture is showing that the boolean is not working properly due to these lines being aligned…
Please note that I’ll report this issue as well.
my hope:
when a good level of booleans has matured, it will pave the way for new “fakenurbs-surfaces” to pave the way for an all-original blenderized CAD
Xelbayria,
The current Blender Boolean does not do anything good if there are exact overlaps of geometry, as appears to be the case in your example.
I am working on an improvement to Boolean where one of the main goals is for it to work when there are exact (or near exact) overlaps of geometry.
Looks like a floating point issue. A simple solution would by to save the Origin of Object B and scale it up before the Boolean (Scale * 1.0005). And after the Boolean select all new added vertex to Object A (this should by the Geometry of Object B) and use the saved Origin to scale them down (Scale * 1/1.0005).
This could be done in a Python-Script for testing.
I am aware that you are working on the boolean system and you are also doing improvement on other systems. Just take your time and you would able to find the answer for the issues. well take one thing at a time. 
meanwhile, I have a way to work around these issues for now. I should be fine. I only wanted to report the issues because I want to see a better Blender for many users to use. 
can’t wait to see that day!
have a nice day!
Solver Carve - slow, but cool, Solver BMesh - fast, but bad. Carve can working with overlap geometry, almost like CAD, BMesh - cant. But if overlaping geometry very mach - Carve cant working too.
And old Boolean can this Bug or ficha?
Having the non destructive Live Bevel after boolean feature, such as HardMesh, which the yeast has, would be an incredible add-on.
