The problem that this feature will solve:
Easily create/modify [non]interference fitments in more complex models.
Brief description of the outcomes that you expect from this feature:
I would like the first iteration to simply allow for the ability to define/adjust, in history, the offset that is created between the tool and working body in a subtraction operation for boolean fitments. In the pictures included I have modeled the parts of a specific massage gun in order to create a case insert to securely retain them. My preferred method of designing this would be to create accurate, reusable models of the actual items and then use negative space modeling with a definable offset to create fitment tolerances in the case. This way I have accurate models of the important items that could be used for other designs down the road (for accessories, add-ons, etc) as opposed to having to create oversized models to generate the fitment I expect.
A benefit to this is that I could use these models to create non-interference fitments like is needed in this project, but I could then move on to a new interference fitment project using the same models (i.e. I could next design a shock absorbing bumper sock/boot, with an interference fitment using TPU for the main massage gun body without having to modify the massage gun model).
In the section view you can see that there is no offset between the models of the massage gun/accessories and the case and in the history view you can see the boolean operation that created the subtraction procedure. I would expect an option in this area that allows you to define the subtraction as the “model dimensions +/- X units of measurement (+/- 0.005 in or +/- 0.1 mm)”.
What can’t you achieve without this feature?
Without this feature I have to either scale tool models up/down before each accessory is created with a boolean operation or I have to scale the resulting “impression” up/down. With complicated geometries this creates difficulty and the potential to miss faces in the manual process.
Is this a workflow blocker for you? Is this why you can’t use Shapr3D for work? Is this slowing you down?
This feature would increase the speed in which I could develop solutions from accurate, existing models instead of having to design and manage an ever increasing library of dimensionally modified “tool” models instead of a single “master” model that I can base operations off of.