would cork be a better alternative or addition to carve library for booleans?

Carve library in Blender often works great with some easy meshes but then can get problematic/slow with complex and dense meshes.

Just today I read about some medical prosthetic designs where they used Cork.

I am not sure if that could be used with Blender as well.

It seems to me Cork is a pretty well working library with very dense input meshes.
This might be interesting for the maker and 3d printing community but specifically the medical field.

It’s not in active development anymore.

Not every piece of software has to be in active development :wink: Perhaps they achieved their goals and called it final release.

The last update was 3 years ago and the developer describes it as

You just want a Boolean library with a simple interface, that you can rely on…Unfortunately since Cork is still in ongoing development, this may be more or less true at the moment. This code should be very usable for a research project, perhaps slightly less so for use in a product.

Fair 'nuff :slight_smile:

from what I can read it deals well with complex meshes which I think would benefit Blender for 3d printing and modeling.
Carve is just not as fast and reliable as it seems.

For what it’s worth, Carve isn’t being developed anymore, either. I don’t see any information that suggests Blender would fare better with this library, however.

Where did you read this? What is this for “prosthetic design” application you’re talking about?

Carve is just not as fast and reliable as it seems.

Why does it “seem” that way? Was there a comparison between Carve and Cork? From what I read (on github), Cork is designed for precision, not performance. Even then, there seem to be issues on cases that don’t seem so complex.

Don’t forget that any new boolean library would also have to create good results on meshes with lower polygon counts as well, not just dense meshes.

Now it is true that Carve can be quite slow on really large meshes, but it doesn’t crash and it eventually spits out a valid mesh.

That’s not a library, that’s an academic publication with an accompanying program binary which is “provided only for research and testing purposes”. Blender can not use this.

from the page “…If you want to see the source, use it in products, etc. contact us.”

Blender doesn’t just need to “see the source”. They need them to release the source as free software. If they wanted to do that, they would’ve already done so. They want to keep the software proprietary (which is fine, but not compatible with Blender’s license).