> On the example above, the second cube sits exactly on top of the first cube. This is something that should be avoided as itβs not clear to OpenSCAD whether the two cubes form one object together. This issue can be easily solved by always maintaining a small overlap of about 0.001 - 0.002 between the corresponding objects.
This goes against the whole point of doing parametric design and should be logged as a bug. If the CAD software is unsure whether object spanning [0 to 1] and object spanning [1 to 2] are physically fused, that should be a bug. Mathematically they are fused.
It is a bug (well, a limitation), but AFAIR from my own designs, it generally only affects the low-precision, "fast" preview; in the final calculation it won't be an issue.
Nevertheless it is one of the things that is annoying as hell with the OpenSCAD previewer; constantly having to over-join to avoid it just makes the code more painful.
Coplanarity is generally a challenge in fast CAD previews.
I am referring to the specific case of the tutorial, where second box is exactly on top of first box. By design, there is no overlap and there is no gap, just a continuum of solid.
However, such continuum of solid can't be declared with exact coordinates in OpenSCAD, and instead one has to add intentional error to coordinates so that the solids overlap and the continuity is guaranteed.
> On the example above, the second cube sits exactly on top of the first cube. This is something that should be avoided as itβs not clear to OpenSCAD whether the two cubes form one object together. This issue can be easily solved by always maintaining a small overlap of about 0.001 - 0.002 between the corresponding objects.
This goes against the whole point of doing parametric design and should be logged as a bug. If the CAD software is unsure whether object spanning [0 to 1] and object spanning [1 to 2] are physically fused, that should be a bug. Mathematically they are fused.