Expanded and Divided Boolean results creates less than desired results
-
I've mentioned this "divide boolean creating unclean separations" a while back to @VectorStyler but it might have been over an email conversation and not on the forum. Dealing with the issue today, I wanted to bring it to the forefront again in hopes it can be a prioritized fix sooner rather than later. Perhaps this issue ties in with the merge issues we've been weeding out of VS?
When I expand overlapping strokes and then use the boolean divide, I'm often left with undesirable results where the intersection occurred. I end up having to go to each intersection and delete nodes and use the path brush to paint over them and merge/unite them again to get the clean intersections I need. Having to do this on all the intersections in a design takes a lot of extra time and effort that would be easier to select all and merge and have clean merges
-
@Boldline Tried to replicate this with a similar case, but it is working here. If you have an example where expanding and then dividing has undesirable results, please send it to me.
-
-
@VectorStyler @Subpath - Thank you both for testing it - I may not have been communicating fully about the issue. After I divide and remove unwanted sections of overlap, merging the formerly divided sections back together again causes unclean results.
Here is an example of me doing this with the pen tool. I create the lines and create overlapping lines, then expand them and divide, then re-unite the ones I want merged together. The results here are what I get with every attempt, though sometimes it's worse than what you see here.
-
There's always a small gap where the divide occurs and that gaps is not always fully closed up when merge or unite is applied.
Here is a pic showing that small white gap on strokes that were expanded and then divided:
Using the same example as the image above, I grabbed the sections of pink expanded path in the same direction as the blue line I added and attempted to merge them. The top seam merged perfectly (1) and the bottom seam did not merge at all (2)
Sometimes they do merge perfectly - but it's not common for me, especially if I am using tapered lines or different angles.
Here's a common result I get from merging previously divided shapes: I have to go in to each one like this and delete out the extra nodes and that becomes time consuming.
-
@VectorStyler if you follow the steps in the examples above, are you able to replicate the gaps after dividing and the semi-united results after using merge/unite? If not I can send you some before and after examples
thanks for looking into all this
-
Could confirm it now.
I think I have a solution/workaround for you.
As you may know, I have been playing a bit with the
Offset path Shape Effect, so I came up with this solution.Before you merge your lines back together, put a small offset around the shapes
so the little gaps will disapear. Use 0.5 pt or less. I don't know how important
correct size is for you design. Maybe you can consider the size of the offset?
.Bevor:
.
after: ( no more hassle
)
-
@Subpath that's a great solution! thanks for sharing. i will try doing that.
Hopefully @VectorStyler can still find improved ways for the merge and union to work with divided shapes because it occurs in other scenarios as well, but for now it's great to have a quick way to fix it in the moment
-
Great that it is helpful. Also useful for my cases of course.
Btw as you know you could also create a Action to apply
that Shape Effect.
-
@Subpath said in Expanded and Divided Boolean results creates less than desired results:
Btw as you know you could also create a Action to apply
that Shape Effect.I could probably add the merge to the action along with the offset path and make it easier that way as well
-
@Boldline Yes, merge still has some issues with precisely touching shapes. Will try to improve this.
-
@VectorStyler thank you for looking into it and doing what you can to improve it
