Jump to content
jackamus

Add and Divide shapes

Recommended Posts

This is indeed strange, jackamus. I get two different results when using Divide with your document in the app store and the beta version ...  :unsure:

post-1198-0-63688200-1428072180_thumb.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Meb,

I've just re-opened my MAS 1.2 and the offending file. I deleted the joined shapes, copied and dragged the two rectangles, clicked 'Add' and then tried to divide them again and it still doesn't work.


Mac OS X El Capitan Version 10.11.6

AD version 1.6.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry MEB, I'm not making myself clear.

If I 'Add' two shapes together and then later want to change one of the shapes then I have to 'Divide' them in order to do it. Is that correct?


Mac OS X El Capitan Version 10.11.6

AD version 1.6.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. You can only do that if the result of the boolean operation is a compound path (for example a rectangle with a hole inside). Example: draw a rectangle and a circle overlapping it in the middle. If you Subtract them you will end up with a compound path (press cmd+Y to view the path). In this case you can divide them because the object geometry contains enough information of both original objects to separate them again.

 

But if you perform an Add boolean operation between a rectangle and a circle instead, it will result in a simple rectangle without a hole (because they overlap and you have added them). It's just a simple path (not a compound path). In this case the resulting object can't be divided anymore (again press cmd+Y to view the path) because there's nothing there that could be divided.

 

post-59-0-85949500-1428249407_thumb.png

 

Don't confuse this with compound shapes (that's an different thing).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK MEB I understand.

That begs another question. Why have 'Compound' and 'Add' shapes? Can you give me an example where each is appropriate?


Mac OS X El Capitan Version 10.11.6

AD version 1.6.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When working with boolean operations, there's two ways to perform them: destructively and non-destructively.

 

To help explain the differences consider this example:

- draw two rectangles one overlapping part of the other

 

Destructive boolean operations:

If you select both and click on the Add boolean operation button, you will end with one single shape (path), which you cannot  separate anymore as discussed previously.

This is a destructive operation is the sense that you cannot recover your original rectangles.

 

Non destructive boolean operations:

If you press alt while clicking on the Add boolean operation button, you will end up with a compound shape (look at the Layers panel). That is, a shape composed by other shapes. As you can see, if you expand the compound object layer in the Layers panel, your two original rectangles are still there. And you can still edit/transform them as you wish. The resulting compound object will update to reflect those changes. This is called a non destructive boolean operation, because nothing is lost from the original shapes - you can still have access to them.

 

Whether or not use one mode or the other depends on the project/work you are doing. If it's important for you to keep the original objects because you may want to edit them later then it's best to use non-destructive mode (that is press cmd + the boolean operation button you want to perform).

 

If you think you will not need the original shapes, just use the destructive mode. Since you will end up with a single shape it's a little bit easier to manage. It's also necessary to use a destructive operation if you want to apply different attributes to the shapes that compose a compound shape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome @jackamus  ;)

How do I change a group of shapes that I accidentally used a destructive boolean operation back to original state so I can redo using a non-destructive operation.


Mac OS X El Capitan Version 10.11.6

AD version 1.6.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks MEB just as thought.

You really have to keep your wits about you as you perform these Boolean functions!

 

Is there a case for selecting non-destructive/destructive without having to remember to use an extra key? If you make a mistake, then unlike everything else, you cannot undo it.


Mac OS X El Capitan Version 10.11.6

AD version 1.6.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if a checkbox labeled Editable Booleans appears in the Context Toolbar when two or more boolean candidates are selected? Or a Preference checkbox under Tools tab labeled the same...

 

There have been some discussion about turning the non-destructive boolean operations the default (which i agree), but i wouldn't mind to have an option to revert to the current behaviour when needed.

Currently there's no way to choose between the two.


2017 15" MacBook Pro 14,3 w/ Intel 4 Core i7 @ 2.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM, AMD 455 @ 2 GB, 512 GB SSD, macOS High Sierra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sounds OK but wouldn't it simpler to just have a check box for selecting a 'Destructive' Boolean operation. This will mean that a conscious choice has to be made to do something that cannot later be undone. You could have a warning window that says 'Are you sure?'. ;)


Mac OS X El Capitan Version 10.11.6

AD version 1.6.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

These are the Terms of Use you will be asked to agree to if you join the forum. | Privacy Policy | Guidelines | We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.