For whatever reason, edgeRails3(); is the only one that manages to
chamfer the edges. The other ones look the same (or at least REALLY
similar) when I use # or % before the chamfeuring edges, and then
don't actually work. edgeRails1(); is the most efficient, so I want
to use it. What's going on?
Cases 1 and 2 can't work as they do a union of two objects like:
+----
|
+------\
and
/----+
/ |
/------+
which results in a cube again.
One option would be to push the n loop into the difference so only
two base cubes are generated and for each one two cuts are produced:
module edgeRails1() {
for(i = [1,-1]) {
translate([(railDist+(midRailX+edgeX)/2)i,0,(edgeZ+mountZ)/2]) {
difference() {
cube([edgeX,edgeY,edgeZ], center=true); //edge rails
for (n = [1, -1]) {
translate([0,edgeY/2in,0]) rotate([0,0,30n]) cube([edgeX*2, edgeChamferSize, edgeZ], center=true);
}
}
}
}
}
In the end, that's essentially the same as case 3 (note that the n
loop can be removed from the first for() there too).
ciao,
Torsten.
> For whatever reason, edgeRails3(); is the only one that manages to
> chamfer the edges. The other ones look the same (or at least REALLY
> similar) when I use # or % before the chamfeuring edges, and then
> don't actually work. edgeRails1(); is the most efficient, so I want
> to use it. What's going on?
>
Cases 1 and 2 can't work as they do a union of two objects like:
+----\
| \
+------\
and
/----+
/ |
/------+
which results in a cube again.
One option would be to push the n loop into the difference so only
two base cubes are generated and for each one two cuts are produced:
module edgeRails1() {
for(i = [1,-1]) {
translate([(railDist+(midRailX+edgeX)/2)*i,0,(edgeZ+mountZ)/2]) {
difference() {
cube([edgeX,edgeY,edgeZ], center=true); //edge rails
for (n = [1, -1]) {
translate([0,edgeY/2*i*n,0]) rotate([0,0,30*n]) cube([edgeX*2, edgeChamferSize, edgeZ], center=true);
}
}
}
}
}
In the end, that's essentially the same as case 3 (note that the n
loop can be removed from the first for() there too).
ciao,
Torsten.
