I hope it will come back soon.
@masterxeon1001 Would you consider changing your release model to be more clearly divided into a big and small update one? I don’t want to update an addon multiple times a month, but I also don’t want to miss big, significant changes.
Like a fast release channel for those who want to be on the cutting edge, and a slower channel that only updates once some big changes are fully settled. No beta tools, no ‘we’re just trying this out’, but the result of those tests.
It’s hard to create such a divide since minor updates more often then not also include fixes for errors and crashes.
Perhaps we can work on more of a staging structure where updates are prepared weeks in advance, it is hard to resist releasing the latest and greatest though.
From my perspective: I’m not getting those fixes anyway, since I’m not updating every time. I understand the desire to release often (and I appreciate it!), but I think there are many customers who would like to just get like… 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 release, and not all of the steps in between
I welcome feedback from other people here!
users are recommended to update either when they experience issues or would like to. It works best at this time. Fridays have become an event for intervals of dealing with reports and issues reported.
These posts are to notify users of continued development but we can cut it back but that would make no sense. Update when you want. There is no dialog to push users to update. It’s kept unobstrusive so users can keep working. We cant control fixing bugs and misc issues that come up from the myriad of ways people use blender.
Email notifications were already cut out of the equation with less content being put out as well to minimize confusion so updating the thread is an easy way to keep people in the know.
I found a weird error with the new mirror gizmo. The N panel dissapears when using hops mirror and after the mirror operation is done the n panel is still hidden, which is not ideal. I believe this only happens whenever there is a second viewport open.
Wasn’t able to find the following answers anywhere so far:
When working with cutters, sometimes the object will be divided in two in the Outliner, making it impossible to organize your scene.
1-Why does this happen only sometimes?
2-What should I do with these objects so that I can see them only one time? I just want to be able to put them inside the Cutters group and hide it for a cleaner Outliner.
i avoid issues by leaving the cutters collection alone. Parenting causes that issue. Its just blender.
The weirder people try to get with collection organization the more oddities that appear to occur at this time.
Possibly unparenting or working without auto parent might help.
i dont see how we could even help wiith that. Im not sure how that would even be our fault (boxcutter doesnt stitch geo) or how boxcutter could find the scope the fix geometric issues. Youll prolly needs to either clean mesh with hops or get skilled in the art of cleanup
In terms of “boolean rules” I wouldnt have had that edge there. Its gonna punish the bevel. Having it straight down the middle would allow for “minimal solve”.
geometry requires at least one guidance edge to hold the form so sometimes one has to be tricky with their redirection.
When it comes to custom it is made to draw geo as supplied without merging, deviation or modification to ensure the result is somewhat predictable.
Hey, did I say it was boxcutters’ fault? Absolutely not. In fact I started with “Problably not a problem with boxcutter”.
Mind your arrogance a bit, will you? I don’t appreciate such a reply.
Succes with the project
You turned a productive conversation into a negative one. You should delete your new post and undelete the old ones.
I don’t want to make it a long discussion, but my initial question was like this: Hi, it’s ok to use this thread for support? I don’t think it’s an issue with boxcutter, but I cleaned my mesh (custom shape), and when I cut my cube, I see an overshooting bevel like this (screenshot). Do you have an idea how I can prevent his.
That was my question. How can this below be the reply?
A simple reply could be in the trend like:
I see what you mean: what you have to do, is make some support lines in your cube. Another tip is not to connect face islands with an edge close to where you expect a bevel later. (your custom mesh). If you do that, I think you’re good to go.
with the original post gone the context is lost. However showing me a solid shape with applied booleans will indicate to me either a boolean mishap or an issue with the make system. In my initial response make was being disucssed.
I stand by the scope of bc not fixing geometric issues. That comes down to planning or modifier usage. My follow up response I felt accurate addressed that. I feel the information needing to be conveyed was conveyed resolving this technical misunderstanding.
Perhaps he just misread it?