Can anyone explain to me why boolean cuts are considered taboo by most of the modellers i have spoke to for Poser Props/Figures?

I am told Poser doesn't like them, but after Googling booleans for a while, i can't seem to find a definitive explanation as to why?

It does seem odd, when the facility is there in most model creation software that it is frowned upon or impractical to use them????

Because in most programs booleans create a mess where the objects intersected and removed the mesh - sometimes a mishmash of triangular polys that go willy-nilly. Takes a lot of fixing to correct the crap created by the boolean ;).

Laurie

ok, for example, ive just created a simple cube, with an external thickness number of faces 12, then used a simple cylinder to punch a hole in. total face count now is 33, the mesh is clean and tidy, so what you are saying is in some circumstances, not all??????

Yeah, not all programs make a mess ;). Blender used to, but I think there's a script of plugin now that makes better ones?? Don't quote me on that ;). But yeah, most programs make a messy one ;).

If it's nice and tidy, then there's no reason in the world why it shouldn't be used :).

Laurie

Booleans for props should be fine. Booleans for figure work is asking for it though.  The minute something has to bend or twist, you'll start to realize why it's better not to use a boolean to make it. 

Yes, as Laurie says; the rule should be "don't make rubbish meshes" not "don't use Booleans". The first statement requires more explanation and is therefore often simplified to the second. :)

thanks guys that makes far more sense than a blanket noooooooooo nooooooooo don't.

I used booleans in one of my Dalek models and it was a complete mare to tidy up the resulting hole.  I couldn't have done it any other way, though.  I'll use 'em if there's no other simple solution, but try to avoid them because it's a real pain in the arse to tidy them up.

Quote - Sometimes there is a simple solution in the material room:

Yes, but there's also no thickness. If you want that you're SOL by doing it in the material room. For that, you gotta go to a modeler ;).

Laurie

Quote - Booleans for props should be fine. Booleans for figure work is asking for it though.  The minute something has to bend or twist, you'll start to realize why it's better not to use a boolean to make it. 

this. for Non-Organics, booleans are almost a must for many shapes, so you have to use 'em... takes practice and a certain amount of prep and clean up afterwards tho.

Quote - Of course, you're supposed to clean this sort of thing up. In this case, a quick solution was to convert to tris, but if this creates stretch marks you might have to manually make a neater solution.

the problem there is LTT - Long Thin Tris. Poser hate's em with a passion...

Quote - Yes, but there's also no thickness. If you want that you're SOL by doing it in the material room. For that, you gotta go to a modeler ;).

Not necessarily. Just wanted to emphasize that you do not always need to model the intersection to display it. ;)

Of course, while the IsInObject(xyz) node in the material room is pending, you need to model the intersecting objects both parametrically in the material room and in xyz space before you can do the logic.

Speaking stricktly by a topology side of the discussion, booleans require a heck of a lot of work to correct. Are they easy to use? Yes. Do they require work on your end? Yes. Would it be better to cut and weld myself than boolean? Most times, but not always.

Occasionaly I'll use a boolean and just clean up afterwards. It would probably have taken the same amount of time to create my own but less thinking using the boolean and simple clean up.

Boolean cuts requre a little forthought to keep down the cleanup afterwards.

The face count of both pieces has to be all but perfect for it to work right.

There are far better ways to cut things up in most 3d programs.