I agree completely on this, what would be nice to see in Blender is for the modifiers to operate on its own thread and thus be completely non-blocking in terms of workflow.
To help with that, we can take into mind the suggestion by Andrew Price on having progress bars visible for certain operations (which would be useful to gauge when we should expect the operation to be completed if it’s at all possible). Also, what I think some modifiers could also use is a manual calculate result button so we can slide the values or play with them without locking up Blender for a minute while it performs the operation.
I never quite understood why some people insist on using booleans on a sub-d app. Booleans can be useful on simple meshes. Anything complex is better done on a nurbs app. And if the result is exported to a sub-d app it’s un-editable. It’s not even meant to be edited. It has to be exported or imported in a very high resolution.
I’m curious about this need to use booleans in a sub-d app especially dealing with objects with complex meshes.
You don’t have to use Sub-d to use Blender. Nor do you have to use Booleans as a ghetto Nurbs tool.
I use Booleans all the time, but more as a cutter tool in cases where topology doesn’t matter, the models to be cut are designed around having to be used with the Boolean modifier, however it is still slow and you want to get rid of the modifier ASAP as it locks up Blender when you touch the objects.
To Blender, that is. To any other major 3D app you can import CAD meshes in lower resolutions and let the custom vertex normal map from the CAD software deal with the smooth shading. Not so in Blender: Even with Zalamander’s enhanced obj importer Blender will recalculate the normals on every hit of the TAB-key, which is a major problem.
That reminds me of the proverbial dog which chases its own tail: Booleans in Blender are slow and messy and are therefore only useful for simple meshes. So, if anything complex has to be done in a NURBS app anyway, why should we try to improve the booleans? Well, because a) it’s about time we break this vicious circle and b) Blender does not play nicely with CAD data, too (see above).
Functionable, fast and interactive booleans can be great in the concept phase, for finding shapes without having to make permanent changes to your meshes’ topology. Not having to switch between apps (NURBS / sub-d) is also a major time saver.
Booleans and sub-d still works if for example you can round edges later by hand or simulate a NURBS workflow and later convert the sub-d into NURBS patches to trim and blend everything.
Problem with sub-D is it’s own nature. Hard surface modeling is possible but not always the best.
Till today I did not see a car that has clean and manageable topology made with polys.
Yes you can with care and time build a perfect car put the poly count will be painful and checking curvature a problem.
If then a detail has to be adjusted you basically face to restart or exercise yourself in the art in time consume vertex adjustments to maintain surface curvature flows.
However you can perfectly use sub-d to sculpt the main shells and use boolean to do detail work and later in a NURBS system do you assembly.
NURBS and sub-D to a certain degree work / behave the same way with the exception that NURBS can be precision trimmed without changing the curvature while when adding a hole into a sub-d mesh the surface deforms and you get typical sub-d topology artifacts. Sub-d on the other side allows arbitrary topology like extruding a face and having the blend surface right there which does not work with NURBS at all.
Years ago NURBS or sub-d where not compatible with each other. Since Maya and specifically T-Splines that is the past.
For my product design I utilize sub-d modeling together with NURBS and end up with perfect models.
While the end model will be pure NURBS Blender with sub-D and booleans are a great combination to build model mock-ups and explore design ideas because how fast the booleans can work on a simple sub-d mesh.
While NURBS is more precise the workflow is slow and the booleans allow me to move the object by hand and see the result quite instantly.
In Alias it would involve more steps. In Rhino it will require many undos lol …
It is a question of workflow.
But yes maybe for character modelers booleans might not be the best idea because currently you cannot bevel the sharp cut edge.
The thing is the CAD field is evolving and embracing sub-d also for manufacturing and that is a terrific opportunity to place Blender against other modelers like Modo which are extremely overpriced and not that much better.
Modo’s sub-d to NURBS tools and all plug-ins are extra costs and from the reviews I read the sub-d to NURBS toolset is not even that good.
Autodesk’s Fusion 360 will sooner or later give this some serious punch. Their Sub-d to NURBS workflow is perfect in after december will even be parametric meaning you can model you poly object convert it interactively into NURBS / Breps trim parts out and later go back to the poly model adjust the mesh and the design tree will re-update all your following design commands.
Surfacing at its best using sub-D and NURBS together - a dream come true.
Also SolidThinking is implementing a sub-D to NURBS feature right now as well.
Catia has it for a long time but hardly any normal person can afford Catia
I think users who are not willing to give up one over the other and vise versa are just wasting time. They have to make up their minds that sub-d and nurbs don’t work together. You have to pick one. I can understand that certain workflows work best in nurbs and others in sub-d. Most would rather do it exclusively on sub-d because most are not in the manufacturing business. They’re artists. Slight imperfections are tolerated. Man, how can you even spot imperfections on a perspective view? And sub-d allow you to move verts freely.
In reality, booleans in a sub-d app is mathematically impossible. It has to create thousands of triangles to come up with a perfect result. It needs human intervention. Not everything can be automated.
Mh there are already tools that combine sub-D and NURBS together in one workflow.
And you train your eye to see in perfections in perspective when you pay attention to highlights and details.
Users who do not give up also might create a focus onto a problem like not being able to freeze the modifier stack by hand which also for non boolean tasks can be a blessing.
I haven’t done 3d in a long while now. My last personal learning project was an electric drill. I completed it and it looked exactly like the real thing. There were many sections in the mesh that would have been easily and better done in a nurbs app just as there were also sections that would have been very difficult to accomplish in a nurbs app. Long story short I could not have done it without being able to move verts freely in many sections of the object. Thing that you can’t do in a nurbs app.
I left off with an idea where I thought sculpting would be the more logical workflow, even for hard surface models. Like there are portions of the model where carving out (sculpt) some details would have been easier.
If I had continued from where I left off, I would have pursued sculpting in combination with sub-d, rather than doing it in either nurbs or sub-d exclusively or in combo. Sculpting is no different from booleans. Only difference is you use brushes in sculpting to add and subtract while you use temporary objects to add or subtract in booleans.
So if I were you guys, I’d pursue sculpting then retopo workflow. I would imagine it’s more liberating. But I have no more time for it.
The multires is what mudbox is using as well for problem is just precision.
However what is really important is what the end-result is for. Is it for gaming rendering 3d printing? Those all might have an influence which tool you use.
