I know I must be an idiot bc I got the first part to work no issues by using the “union” option in inkscape. Now trying to make the other half I assumed I would use the “difference” option to make my ovals cut inside instead of the outside of my triangle. What the crap am I doing wrong here?
I have no doubt that someone will come along in a moment or two and correctly tell you how to combine those into one path…but the good news is, you don’t actually have to.
Think about where the cuts are going to go, and you’ll see that even though those paths are not connected, the shape is going to wind up being exactly what you want.
Union is more forgiving than other Boolean options, Difference requires exactly 2 path objects to be selected.
If it were me, I’d select both little ovals, be sure they are paths (object to path), then union them. Now select your double oval path and rectangle (check the bottom of your screen, it should say 2 objects of type path selected) and do difference, and it’ll work.
holy moly. im an idiot lol. I was just trying too hard to make it look like what I imagined in my head.
I do it all the time!
You’re not an idiot, there are lots of reasons why it’s best to do it as a single shape. Jules isn’t wrong, but it will also lead to lots of little slivers of material in your machine, etc. Doing it cleanly is preferable in the long run.
Nope, Boolean can be hard.
My suggestion for working with solids is to use Fusion 360 and realy work with solids.
If you are not ready to go that route, do a fill, that will make sure your paths are closed and things are easier to visualize.
This is the procedure I use for something like that:
You are basically making a stamping tool to cut the shape into the other piece.
Steps for making locking pieces.pdf (41.0 KB)
“It’s that simple”
What about kerf?
I have no problem getting tight connections like this. Perhaps making sure to have the stroke turned off helps?
This topic was automatically closed 32 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.