Union two or more non-intersecting parts?

sg

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...)

3dcad

Okay, 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'.

3dcad

Why do you wan't to do that?

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.

sg

In CATIA the boolean functionality is often used for providing a structure.

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.

3dcad

Okay, 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'.

jakeramsley

For me personally, I don't think union is the correct tool for this.  To me it is muddying the terms between unioning the parts and unioning the selection.  A different mechanism would make more sense to me that would allow for easy selection sets.

andrew_troup

I had the same thought as @jakeramsley ;
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.

3dcad

I'm that way simple person that I don't care if it's called boolean or something else. But I would like to see 'some feature' that I could use when for example patterning a drill to subtract material, 10x10 holes makes 100 drills = 100 parts, there should be a way to combine these into 1 part.

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.

IT_Robotiq

Regarding of this subject, we have an engraving on a part and we want to put a different color on the engraving that on the part. To do this, I thought I could make new parts by thickening the faces of the engraving, then by modifying the appearances of these new parts. 
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.

3dcad

@IT_Robotiq
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.

romeograham

@IT_Robotiq
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.

bill_shirley

People use this tool for different purposes. If you can't imagine its usefulness, it might be because you solve different problems.

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.

glen_dewsbury

Have you tried the composite part function. All included are treated as one. Make sure to check closed in the dialog so the part list is reduced.

peter_van_westen

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.

rick_randall

Is there an "improvement request ticket" for this subject?

S1mon

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?

chris_hector

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

S1mon

Create composite, closed.

peter_van_westen

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/109261#Comment_109261

No, using Composite Parts is not a solution, as you can't then select that Composite Part (even when closed) to union with something else.

craig_barber

peter_van_westen seems to be correct about this. Just a noob but I'm already trying to create four cylinders to form four holes in a cylinder. So, after I "join" "composite" "union" or other word, I need to do the same again, in negative (subtract?) to the main cylinder. Problem not closed at all?

MDesign

https://forum.onshape.com/discussion/comment/114208#Comment_114208

the suggestion was to turn on the closed option when doing a composite. Not that the issue was closed