Ken wrote:
> 
> Spider wrote:
> 
> > It seems to me that you are right...
> > It's in the merge... Strange that the boxes should eliminate eachother...
> > Well... Congratulations...
> >
> > I wonder why it hasn't been found earlier....
> >
> > //Spider
> 
> I think I have figured out why it behaves this way. The two
> faces in the -z/+z directions are overlapping even though
> they are on the outside. Therefore they are coincident
> surfaces and cancel each other out. I tried this code on
> my install of v2.2 and it acted the same way so it's been
> around for years. I guess the way to get around it would
> be to under/over scale one of the boxes so the surfaces
> don't coinside but I don't like the fact you can't create an
> object with this simple cgs functioin without having a little
> step on the surface. Come to think of it how would you
> get a clean unstepped surface while eliminating the interior
> surfaces any other way ? It's a Bug ! It's a BUG !
> 
> BUMMER !
> 
> Ken Tyler

At first I thought 'Aha a simple coincident surface problem, one box is
always inside the other and is eliminated'.
However when A is inside B then B should be outside A and keep its
surface. Very odd.

Cheers, PoD.

Post a reply to this message