Page 2 of 2
Re: Why's a Cone Solid not a Solid?
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 10:07 am
by chrisb
KDM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:31 am
Stupid question: what if the base of the cone purposely had a base 1mm greater in radius than the half diameter of the parallelepiped? Do I have teh same problem that the intersection is ambiguous?
It would probably work. It's rather the "just touching" which can cause problems.
Re: Why's a Cone Solid not a Solid?
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 11:36 am
by domad
KDM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:31 am
.........
(I wanted to try it but now that I've chamfered the edges, I can't recreate the problem. Even if I remove the chamfer!!)
.......
Hi KDM, greetings to the Community!
.... No, the fillets of the edges of the parallelepiped do not center anything. It centers its generation that is from how it originated, in fact the parallelepiped was generated from the rectangle that originated, or rather it was drawn, starting from one vertex (not from its center), with diagonal tracing, at the other vertex.
So when I go to modify its width (shorter side) it changes not from the center but from its vertex, with the result that it is no longer centered with respect to the cone, therefore we will have the base of the cone protruding from the face of the parallelepiped ( condition of unambiguity), while on the other hand the state of abiguity remains, which will always give rise to the error.
To remedy it, the parallelepiped (the rectangle of origin) must be centered with respect to the cone so that the abiguities disappear from the two faces.
I hope to be more understanding with the animated * .gif that explains this concept step by step.
Re: Why's a Cone Solid not a Solid?
Posted: Sat Jul 02, 2022 11:12 pm
by KDM
I really, REALLY appreciate you trying to explain this.