onekk wrote: ↑Tue Mar 21, 2023 10:42 am
IMost of the example shown around to support the need to "break single solid rule" are simply showing that some feature are producing multiple solids that will be fused or subtracted from the "single solid" to obtain a different thing.
not true, I also point out examples for 3d printing where the result is meant to be multiple solids, I also talked of parts made for CNC which will be multiple solids from the same raw material. I also showed an example of someone who wants to split a part in two. There's also the case where someone just wants to make a pattern of something made in PD, sure they can make the pattern in other tools but there's no real reason why PD pattern should reject this use.
And even if it was the case that only the intermediary steps would be multiple solids, how do you propose that we lift the requirement for intermediary steps but only enforce it on the end result? Each intermediary step is the end result until you make a subsequent feature, or for the case of a body meant to be used in a boolean operation this intermediary step is the end result of that body. This question also goes to chrisb and others who advocated for multiple solids only on intermediary steps, I'm genuinely curious about the answers.
Also since this means doing all the work required to allow multiple solids in one way or another why not make this restriction to the end result optional and shut our mouths for good? You lose nothing by allowing others to work as they want.
if PD WB could break the "single solid rule" would this breaking affect the success of subsequent "operations" that will be need to complete the model.
there's no reason why it would break anything, the single solid rule can be lifted in realthunder's version for example. I am yet to see an example where using multiple solids lead to trouble there, and even if this hypothetical where true... give me a warning then let me go on, that in some niche cases it can fail does not mean that all the cases where it works flawlessly should be forbidden.
Probably trying to make some examples, where there could be "real advantages other than" sparing a couple of clicks will help discussing on a solution.
It's not a couple of clicks, it's many clicks and key presses and it's also sparing moving to different workbenches and cluttering the tree, mixing workflows and forcing people to learn other wb for things that could have been done in PD if it weren't for this rule. people keep asking for examples and justification for breaking the single solid rule despite hundreds of examples having seen on the forum across time, yet when I asked for a justification for the single solid rule... this are the only three arguments (simplified to their core) I have heard an my rebutals:
1 - the definition of the word body is of a single solid (this the most common and annoying argument)
-- there is no reason why we should limit a computer's capability due to limits of the english language, we can very well use a different word if this is so important.
2 - there is some usecases where having a single solid rule could be beneficial
-- ok so you may ask for a feature to force single solids by user/organization choice or a warning or we may have automatic splitting as was shown in a solidworks video in this thread, it does not follow from this argument that all other use cases where multiple solids can be beneficial should be forbidden. What makes these usecases so much more valuable than the others that they can force the others out and cannot coexist?
3 - multiple solids are fragile to toponaming problem (this I only recall seeing once, is it even true?)
-- so what? so is attaching to faces or making fillets and we still allow them. I can make 100% toponaming safe models whether it has one solid or 100 solids, why does the software need to say "sorry, you are not allowed to do this because you might be too dumb to manage it". This should be my decision not the software's. Besides, toponaming algorithm is underway which makes this a non argument.
To properly justify a single solid rule one must justify why all the examples given where multiple solid can be useful must be forbidden, I sincerely cannot see how this is justifiable.