Thanks Kai. I am actively working on trying to improve the Bmesh booelans. This is useful input.
- Howard Trickey On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 12:38 PM Kai Kostack <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Blender devs, > > After the removal of Carve for booleans, which is an important part of the > Fracture Modifier, I did some tests with Bmesh booleans to find out the > differences and what we need to change in order to make FM work with that > system. I'd like to share some of my observations and maybe discuss > possible > improvements for consistency with you. > > Overview: http://pasteall.org/pic/a7286dabbb2f49f71dc548d5653f5720 > Blend file: http://pasteall.org/blend/index.php?id=49342 > (Note that you need an older Blender build with Carve) > > Our premise always was to make the Fracture Modifier a robust tool that > should > not be nitpicky about the given input mesh. It should basically work for > the > artist at all times. This means the FM should also accept and work with > non-manifold, self-intersecting and complex meshes which are typical use > cases > in production and provide solutions for that. We have used Carve for this > in > the past and analyzed and utilized its behavior to make that possible, > thus my > tests include all those possible variants. > > Results: > > My first impression was that Bmesh is doing quite well now. It produces > more > predictable results for non-manifold targets and even for some manifold > ones. > Here are my observations: > > 1. Bmesh is leaving free edges in non-manifold results (well visible in > orange > in the lower right), those should be removed after operation. > > 2. Bmesh is not face normals aware. I'm not sure if this is good or bad > thing > in a higher sense, but I know that this is limiting factor for some users > (see > inverted normals variants which would flip results in Carve). > > 3. As a result of 2. Bmesh can produce meshes with inconsistent normals as > it > keeps the original normals of the operator object but ignores them for the > actual boolean operation (row 3 and 6). > > This is what I could see, maybe there are more differences. I think that > Bmesh > could be more consistent with Carve in general but it should at least > output > clean results. We have no "make normals consistent" modifier in Blender > for > instance to fix normals within a modifier stack. > > I'm aware that these are not necessarily considered being bugs, so I'm > just > putting it here for discussion and making you aware of that. Maybe it can > even > be helpful for the Code Quest. > > Best regards, > Kai Kostack > _______________________________________________ > Bf-committers mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
