Better boolean system?

I really want a better boolean system now that we have Bmesh modeling. You know how now we just have this crap:


That was good way back in the day, but now why not just knock out the tris and replace them with verts along the edge of the hole?

If there’s a good reason why I’d love to know.

I really want a better boolean system now that we have Bmesh modeling
What is your solution to the problem ?

but now why not just knock out the tris and replace them with verts along the edge of the hole?
The bmesh structure does not allow that.

*** Thread moved from Discussion to Support / Modelling ***

Select All then do “Limited Dissolve”

Oh the Bmesh doesn’t allow a hole to be cut in the middle of the mesh? :stuck_out_tongue:

I really want a better boolean system now that we have Bmesh modeling.

<sarcasm>
Oh, you really want it? That changes everything
</sarcasm>

The Bmesh structure does not (currently) allow for holes inside of polygons, so you’d have to live with at least one of these edges after dissolving.

Which I would think would be bad practice anyway, better ensure at least 2 or more edges around a hole.

I believe as of now, the boolean system does not produce Ngons, however, what you’re seeing is way better than what the booleans were like a year or so ago on anything that wasn’t very basic (overlapping faces, concave faces, holes, and overall a mess).

Thanks! That seems to work.

That was good way back in the day

Bmesh wasn’t implemented “way back in the day” by any stretch of that expression. This is an obvious upgrade to wish for when using booleans, but Blender code doesn’t write itself based on what seems sensible.
But it would be interesting to hear a developer’s viewpoint on bmesh-collaborative booleans.

The desired effect can be approximated by adding a Decimate-modifier with the new Planar option. If this was applied selectively to the intersecting faces of boolean operations, it seems close to the desired functionality.
Practically feasible or efficient? I have no idea.

As for getting a quad model, could you use the remesh modifier to get the resolution of quads you need, then apply it?

I’m working a lot with booleans at the minute, making lots of renders for building parts, so, lots of circles cut out of thin pieces of plastic.

The way I’m doing it is to delete the faces connecting the edges of the circles and the edges of the box and simply re-mesh. Subdivide and loopcut are your friends. It’s the only way I see you getting the right topology that you need. Sometimes a “fix all” button isn’t the best solution, just a bit of time and thought.

@ScriptingPro: You could learn to model. Booleans are typically used by beginners who do not know how to model and just want to rush through things. It is nice that we have that tool, but I rarely use it because it is ineffcient.

Tutorial, cutting a hole in your mesh:

This idea that you shouldn’t use booleans because they are “beginner” is a bit of a misconception, usually said by beginners themselves. Booleans may be misused a lot, but that doesn’t stop them being incredibly useful and efficient when used properly. That video you showed is very simplistic, it’s a circle extruded off a perfectly flat plane. What about when you want to make something like this?

Boolean in blender does have a lot of room for improvement, for example it would be better having zero added edges (or one for holes) instead of currently tonnes of unwanted triangles and it would be very useful to choose multiple boolean types with multiple objects, at the moment you can only choose one type with one object. What’s also unhelpful is how blender only lets you modify the add-mesh tool parameters (like radius/ number of sides etc.) only immediately after you add a mesh. What would be more useful would be to keep that option right up until editing the mesh. These things would make blenders booleans more usuable. It’s a pity this topic was moved.