2D Shapes Tool Options

[jtucker]

The 2D shapes have tool options for 2D surface, 2D wall, 3D extrusion, etc.  I would like to see an additional option for just a 2D outline with no surface fill or wall thickness.  I know there are work arounds to get this, but it would be very helpful to have an option for 2D outline.

[allanjl]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I think there's a 2D outline tool. I use it all the time. It creates 2D wall outlines. If you want to cut an opening for a door or window, you create a 2D rectangle of the proper size and you difference it out. 

Maybe you mean you want a multi-line tool. Like Autocad "ml" command that creates a double line of whatever width you want. If that's the case, then all you need to do is delete the segments at the end of the solid 2D wall. 

 

[jtucker]

No, not looking for a wall or double line, just a single outline for shapes like circle, rectangle, ellipse, etc.

[jtucker]

This is what I have in mind:

 

[vva]

it is only one more click: >Derive 3 > "Uncover" tool

vva

[jtucker]

Yes, "Uncover" is a work around.  It is what I currently use.

[ZTEK]

The Uncover tool changes the topology. Is that what you need?

Why not select all the objects you want to "uncover" and deselect Render As Shaded Surface in the Inspector palette? This way, the topology and parameters are preserved.

[jtucker]

Yes I actually am wanting to change the topology.

[ZTEK]

On 10/12/2023 at 9:55 AM, jtucker said:

No, not looking for a wall or double line, just a single outline for shapes like circle, rectangle, ellipse, etc.

I understand. However, for things like that, there is no advantage in doing that way. Deselecting Render As Shaded Surface is a more efficient alternative, IMO. formZ (3D) is not a drawing tool and when you extrude the Closed Wire entity you get with the Uncover tool, the result is a Solid. So, I can't see the point, or am I missing something? Any example to better understand what you are looking for?

[¢hris £und]

jtucker, your desire to construct such geometry intrigues me as well. Could you elaborate on your reasons for pursuing this?

You've hinted at certain tools you believe should possess this capability. Are there additional tools you have in mind?

My line of questioning here stems from a possibility that a utility script could potentially be developed to incorporate this functionality. However, this would likely be limited to resulting objects that are initially single surface objects. The current system doesn't support stitching together two sets of line segments that aren't already surfaced. So a truly 3D object that is made up of closed wires, isn't really possible.  Either by modeling construction or programatic construction.

e.g. These two closed wire objects cannot be stitched together to be come a singular object.

 

These two surfaces can be stitched together.

 

Result:  two surfaces stitched together

 

Regarding the 3D extrusion process, how do you envision its operation? Are you expecting any of the potential surfaces to actually become surfaces? Or is your goal to have everything represented as a wireframe? If it's the latter, it's important to note that each closed wire would remain distinct entities due to the current limitations on stitching.

While *joining or grouping is possible. It should be noted, that the join and the group are merely organizational options. They do not make a singular object like the stitch does.  

*this kind or organizational join is different than the 2D edit "join."  The 2D edit join can be useful for creating such singular loops, in special circumstances. But, probably not useful circumstances. (from what I can tell, at least some of the open wires need to have been made into a non-surfaced object at some point.)

 

 

[Hugo]

Jtucker,

could you explain a bit more about your workflow, and for what purpose you like to have that option?