Halfspace

[danielfalck]

or 'Section'

[jmaustpc]

or 'Section'

Hi Dan
Might cause confusion with the current "Part Cross-sections"?

Jim

[yorik]

or simply Part Halfspace, why not? after all it is exactly what it is, and the word halfspace is well known...
There could be 3 types of input then:
- a basepoint and a point
- a face and a point
- a shell and a point
The first and second are actually the same thing, could be merged into one.

[triplus]

or simply Part Halfspace, why not? after all it is exactly what it is, and the word halfspace is well known...

Exactly. It is half-space feature and no need to call it something else.

But that would only work with an infinite planar surface....

I just stumbled on another way of creating an infinite solid: The
BRepPrimAPI_MakePrism has a constructor to create an infinite prism
from a face.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=6371#p51253

In case this was missed i rather mentioned it twice.

But about OCE half-space feature i was just wondering if on the long run it would be more efficient and the results would be more predictable (topological naming) to use OCE half-space feature instead of set of other OCE features to create half-space? I guess this question could only be answered if both methods would be implemented and backed by real use case test data?

Anyway any new half-space tool added that will do the job will be nice addition!

[tanderson69]

or simply Part Halfspace, why not? after all it is exactly what it is, and the word halfspace is well known..

IMHO: If the command is simply going to create a halfspace feature, then "halfspace" for a name makes sense. But if the command is going to make a halfspace and then do the boolean cut then "halfspace" for a name doesn't make sense...at least to me.

[yorik]

IMHO: If the command is simply going to create a halfspace feature, then "halfspace" for a name makes sense. But if the command is going to make a halfspace and then do the boolean cut then "halfspace" for a name doesn't make sense...at least to me.

That makes sense indeed...

[triplus]

Because using a set other available features/tools to create half-space object will be used i agree for example a "Cut" should be labelled as "Cut" in tree view! But the feature or better yet the tool itself is in the end half-space tool?

You use it to create half-space objects and it makes sense to be called for what is it or better yet for what it does? It creates half-space objects?

[tanderson69]

Because using a set other available features/tools to create half-space object will be used i agree for example a "Cut" should be labelled as "Cut" in tree view! But the feature or better yet the tool itself is in the end half-space tool?

You use it to create half-space objects and it makes sense to be called for what is it or better yet for what it does? It creates half-space objects?

The point of the discussion was about actually needing a halfspace freecad object. There is no point in adding all the code and overhead for a halfspace freecad object if it's only ever used for a boolean cut! If this is true for everyone, we can simply create 1 feature that builds the halfspace and uses it in a boolean cut. At that point naming it halfspace, doesn't make any sense!

[jmaustpc]

Some name ideas
Part trim
Part 3d_trim
Part Halfspace_Trim
Part infinite_Trim

[triplus]

The point of the discussion was about actually needing a halfspace freecad object. There is no point in adding all the code and overhead for a halfspace freecad object if it's only ever used for a boolean cut!

From this perspective indeed the thing i was wondering about was (but i guess this question can not be answered without implementing both methods and do tests) how does that affect for example performance. I am guessing this tool will be used on complex objects and i was wondering using different set of tools combined instead of specific tool indented for this task how does that differ regarding performance and any future modification of the resulted object from the perspective of OCC/OCE.

But this is i guess a bit off topic regarding terminology debate.

If this is true for everyone, we can simply create 1 feature that builds the halfspace and uses it in a boolean cut. At that point naming it halfspace, doesn't make any sense!

I see your point there actually will not be a tool to create half-space object instead there will be a tool to crate:

I just stumbled on another way of creating an infinite solid: The
BRepPrimAPI_MakePrism has a constructor to create an infinite prism
from a face.

Hyperplane.

The confusion on my side was i thought there will be a tool where user would create hyperplane and do the cutting part in one go. If this tool will be used to create hyperplane well then i guess we have the name for it and for resulting object in tree view too.