Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.
First time visiting? Here are some places to start:- Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
- Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
- Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
- Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.
If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.
Union two or more non-intersecting parts?
sg
Member Posts: 3 ✭
Is there a way to union two or more parts which do not intersect?
This would be a nice feature for 'advanced' boolean operations (union of some parts, then intersection of the results...)
This would be a nice feature for 'advanced' boolean operations (union of some parts, then intersection of the results...)
1
Best Answer
-
3dcad Member, OS Professional, Mentor Posts: 2,475 PROOkay, now I see your point. I quess it wouldn't harm anyone if boolean would accept also parts that are not intersecting.
It would solve also the situation where user thinks parts are connected (two corners or so) but they are not actually touching enough..
Now when I think it more, sometimes I would like to boolean some pattern into 1 part to clean up parts list. I would rather see multiple copies of same part (derived part) in one part studio though.
I suppose the only way currently is to create some excess material to connect parts that will be removed as part of 'boolean tool'.
//rami6
Answers
If you think it in the real world, two pieces that do not connect to each other are often thought as two separate pieces rather than one.
In assembly you can use 'Group' which makes two (or more) parts move together without needing to add other mates.
For example for a drill plate you could union all holes and openings in one part ('negative features'), then remove this part from the whole plate ('positive feature').
Once the features are ordered under the parts on boolean operations, the tree would be more clearly arranged.
It would solve also the situation where user thinks parts are connected (two corners or so) but they are not actually touching enough..
Now when I think it more, sometimes I would like to boolean some pattern into 1 part to clean up parts list. I would rather see multiple copies of same part (derived part) in one part studio though.
I suppose the only way currently is to create some excess material to connect parts that will be removed as part of 'boolean tool'.
but I didn't get it clear enough in my mind to put down.
I wonder if it comes down to an (important) issue of conceptual purity: is boolean (as the software processes it) currently about adding and subtracting bodies, or is it about parts?
I presume it is the former from the current behaviour: when you add together two bodies which do not touch, you inevitably get two bodies, in other words, no change to the status quo.
If so, I can see that the functionality being asked for here would require a rethink and a rewrite of the code, so that the unit under consideration was changed from 'bodies' to 'parts'.
I would be interested to hear from someone at Onshape whether doing this, to address one problem, might result in new problems (behavioural, not just conceptual) in other areas.
Otherwise I think derived parts will do the trick IF patterning added part for above purpose just shows up as one feature and not multiplying part.
But let's first see what hole wizard and derived parts bring before making changes to boolean feature.
The problem with it is that it creates a lot of new parts, wich we don't want to. So, we wanted to union these new parts that don't touch each other.
Unfortunately, OnShape won't let me.
Coloring faces would be your solution. This is highly requested feature for long time and I'm sure Onshape is working hard to push that feature as soon as possible.
You could connect the new parts with a solid feature that is entirely inside your engraved part (so you don't see it). Now you have only 2 parts: the Engraved part, and the thickened faces of the engraving. You can color the single "engraving" part for screen caps / drawings etc.
Under the surface, the two bodies will be intersecting, but this is not a problem, because the "engraving" part is only an aid for visualization.
@3dcad
you could do the same thing (if only it was June 2015 again): pattern your 100 drill bits, and extrude a simple rectangular body that joins them all together. Voila, you have a single "tool" body with 100 drill-shaped bits sticking out. Now your Boolean Subtract (to create 100 holes) is a simple, 2-body affair.
One fine example of wanting to union disparate parts is when dealing with text. The letters are created each as a separate part, sometimes more than one (the "i" and the "dot in the i"). It would be useful to clean these up into a single part. The only solution now is to join them to another part.
However, it's a common use case to export this model to other software where you can change the color of a single part. Having to usefully name every letter part in Onshape and/or having to color every letter part in the downstream tool is an odious task. One that could easily be resolved in software. Here.
As above, I don't care if you call is something else (quantum entangle?), just provide it. Though union is the correct term mathematically: The sets {1, 3, 5} and {8, 10, 12} can validly be unioned without needing to have an intersection.
A shame that after 9 years (holy moly!) there is still no usable way to group separate parts so that they act as one.
No, using Composite Parts is not a solution, as you can't then select that union Composite Part to union with something else.
No, adding virtually invisible parts that join everything in the union is a stupid and cumbersome workaround.
I still haven't seen a real good reason for the union boolean to not be able to deal with separate parts. It would not 'muddy the waters', IMO.
But hey, after 9 years, I guess the chances are zero that this will get implemented. We'll have to keep working around stuff and keep selecting a zillion different parts if you simply want to change their color or do some other thing with them.
Is there an "improvement request ticket" for this subject?
From a real world manufacturing standpoint, if I can't pick something up and not have it be multiple pieces, it's not a single part. What reason do you want to have a part be more than one separate body? What is the use for that, which isn't accomplished by composites or assemblies?
An example I'm dealing with right now:
Importing a PCB from KiCAD, the footprints align all the components and export to a step file. The components do not actually overlap right now, but they will once solder is applied. I cannot create a union due to this without forcing overlapping geometry. I'd like to create a union between the parts to simulate them being soldered together rather than have multiple parts, since it will be one physical unit once it is soldered together
Create composite, closed.