B-Mesh Video Preview
A new modeling system is in development for Blender, called B-Mesh. If you are curious about the new capabilities of the B-Mesh, ZanQdo was kind enough to produce a great video showing a preview of the system.
Did you see? Yes, we will have N-Gons! To know more about the B-Mesh development, visit this page.
First! Why do we want ngons? don’t they make for messy meshes?
very nice :)
There are a lot of problems with n-gons. I know there are quite a few people that really want them, but I think that _not_ supporting n-gons is one of Blender’s finest features.
In n-gon’s defense though, box modeling in Blender will be a lot easier with them (I use the point to point and topology brush method though), and architecture modeling can be easier as well (see the video above). However, I really hope that making n-gons isn’t so easy and automatic that we’ll be be flooded with models that have n-gons in them, since n-gons should never be in a final model.
So those are my concerns. N-gons can be used as a tool when working on the topology of a model (even though you don’t really need it in my opinion) but I’m afraid that it will become one of those abused features that will turn into a really bad habit for lots of artists.
I agree with Metsys. I hope that it will be only an available feature, but not the rule!
I fear that it would be difficult to master the final topology of a mesh with this tool, even if N-gons are converted to quads at the end.
briggs codes it so that the current workflow can still be used just fine.. :)
Enough with ngonophobia! we use poles and tris too, or we’d be stuck with square grids with no branches… ngons will give us even more ability and ease.
BMesh is about more than ngons: it is a new mesh structure that explodes the limitations of the current mesh in exciting and dramatic ways: it gives devlopers the ability to make mesh tools in a much saner way (this will end up advancing our mesh modeling tools a lot) and gives users some “candy” like ngons almost as a biproduct.
I imagine this will totally replace the current mesh structure once it is ready. Otherwise blender will be carrying too much cruft around (not just the mesh structure, but the tools will have to be coded seperately for each (and it’s much harder for old edit mesh))
PS I will now apply for a psych. doctorate for discovering ngonophobia.
It looks like a slow and painful version of SketchUp. At least, I could have made that house in SketchUp much, much more easily.
Without ngons, lots of tools plain suck, for example the cut tool (look at XSI which has a real cut tool, very nice and productive, the one in blender is plain crap). It’s a pain in the @$$ to do box modeling. I’ll have my models only in quads even if ngons are supported, but ngons will bring a lot of ease to blender…
Metsys: Bassam’s right. Ngons area really a side effect of bmesh, not the purpose. The
current mesh modelling code unimaginably sucks right now, and that’s the main
motivating factor for bmesh. BMesh will act very similar to the current system. And no
it won’t be an “option.” And like bassam said, poles and tris are every bit as bad as
ngons, in fact their worse in some situations.
Joe
Metsys: so following your reasoning to its logical conclusion, I assume you think it shouldn’t be so easy to make triangles in Blender too, since they shouldn’t be in a final mesh?
Seriously, the only problem with ngons is that they cause weird spots on subdivision surfaces. But the same is true of triangles and poles, and that’s no reason to make it difficult for users to create them. They are all genuinely useful tools. We shouldn’t exclude them or make it difficult to use them just to force beginners to leave them out of their models.
Listen this is a VERY early tech preview, just enjoy the couple of features that work and dont go bitching about the millions of tools that doesnt. You cant do crazy stuff because the current tesselator is bad and will give horrible black and overlapping faces but this is about to change.
So keep that in mind, its very very WI, you cant posibly have the same workflow in bmesh as in edit mesh *right now* but this will eventually give us way more power
joeedh: I think n-gons are far worse when it comes to the final model. Case in point: I’d be in big trouble if I passed-off a final model to rigging if it had an n-gon, poles are necessary and so he won’t care, tris if it’s cleverly placed and couldn’t logically be replaced by a pole. Nothing is more embarrassing than being rebuked by the rigging guy over your modeling work. Fortunatly I haven’t been caught with n-gons (because Blender doesn’t support them), but he hates n-gons because he used to work with Maya and apparently Maya makes it too easy.
Just because I handle n-gons with hazmat gloves doesn’t mean I’m a ngonophobe. [comedic pause]
But you are right, n-gon support in Blender is just going to be a side affect of the new mesh structure, which I am happy about.
ngons are a tool, they allow you to make cuts and reconstruct geometry *locally*, if you dont want ngons in yor *final* mesh thats ok!
Metsys,
Its fairly common I understand for some people to use knowledge of topology to build a simple ngon mesh that, when subdivided once will create a nice quad mesh will all the loops they want exactly where they want them.
Also, you’re kindof assuming *every single blender user* does only what you do, which sounds like organic modeling. For things like architectural modeling ngons can be more useful.
And I really disagree that poles are better then ngons. Ngons may or may not be better then poles (its been a long time since I experimented with that) but they are definitely not *worse*.
Joe
Hello,
all the people is talking about n-gons and even blender talks sometimes about…. but someone can post a link or a good explanation about what the hell it is? Remember, please, that I’m an alien and I should’nt know what you are talking about. I know i sound unpleasant, is only my english, sorry. Thank you.
Glau
What? Ngons?
Okay, if you’re going to add ngon support, may I at least ask that the n-sided faces be somehow hilighted? You have no idea how much it sucks to submit the your final model, only to find out that there was an ngon that you accidentally made (or forgot to remove) and it completely messes up the next guy. The running joke when modeling organically is that tris will kill baby dolphins, but ngons will make you lose your job.
Bassam, I understand that ngons are not the point of this, but I do see them as a hindrance- at least if there isn’t some kind of warning that it’s there. Maya addresses this issue by having a “limit selection” tool that allows you to limit your selections to ngons, then box-select the entire model and all of your ngons will be selected for you to eliminate. The problem is that I seldom see people remember to use this tool, and even when they do remember it’s kind of a hassle.
Anyway, just make sure the ngons stand out somehow so they won’t cause problems for artists, particularly those working with teams, and it should be fine. We don’t need a popup or spash screen, just making the ngons appear a different color as a subtle reminder would be sufficient. That could give blender the best of both worlds- ngons are supported for box modeling or mechanical modeling; but it won’t risk messing up the final model by leaving behind hidden ngons. Concerns aside, I am glad to hear that this will open up possibilities for new modeling tools.
For those people complaining about n-gons… I’ll tell you the reason for why it turns out bad for you:
.
.
.
.
You just suck at modeling.
Start to learn how they can be useful, just like you had to learn how to manage triangles and quads, and you’ll discover that n-gons will help a lot while building up your models.
You can compare it with the golden sphere on a checkered floor. Many people who don’t know how to render something nice post those things all around the internet. Does it mean that the developers should remove the reflection slot and checker-texture from their renderers, image editors and so on?
Come on, you know you want it badly!
For the benefit of Glaurung, and anyone else who may not know what ngons are or why I hate them, here’s a bit of explanation:
A face with three sides is a tri.
A face with four sides is a quad.
A face with five or more sides is an ngon.
Tris are only a problem for organic modeling, particularly when you are going to use a subsurface modifier. To get an idea of what I’m talking about, you can easily reproduce an extreme example of the effects of tris by creating a cylinder and subsurfacing it. Notice all of the pinching going on around the edges? There may be occasion where you want this, but generally you don’t. I specialize mostly in organic models, hence the baby dolphin joke in my post above.
Now, when making a model using the box modeling technique (i.e. starting with a cube and cutting it up until it resembles the subject), or when doing architecture/inorganic objects as shown in the video above, ngons can give the artist the advantage of being able to throw edges around without regard to where the loops end- to be cleaned up later. The problem lies in the fact that, when modeling this way, it’s easy to forget about some of the ngons. You would think that they would be easy to spot- and sometimes they are- but I got burned on them by having a few behind the ear of a character.
Here is a partial list of potential problems that can occur when you forget to get rid of all the ngons in your model:
-With arbitrarily shaped faces, your texture maps (in addition to being difficult to layout the uvs) will have a lot of unwanted stretching.
-When you export your model to another program that doesn’t support ngons, such as a game engine, you will end up with a hole where your ngon was supposed to be. I got burned on that one.
-When animating, you may end up with strange deformations
-although the bmesh may do this differently, Maya addresses ngons internally by replacing them with a bunch of triangles. Remember what I said triangles do to your subsurfaced mesh?
-Ngons will drink your beer, teach your children profanity and leave the toilet seat up.
I think I have made my point. Ngons aren’t bad when you’re still in the work-and-progress mode, and you may not even care if the model is inorganic, but it would be good to have a way of preventing my model from still having ngons when I’m finished with it.
“… You just suck at modeling. Start to learn how they can be useful, just like you had to learn how to manage triangles and quads, and you’ll discover that n-gons will help a lot while building up your models.”
Ooognsoepje: Everyone that has expressed their opinion on why we choose not to use n-gons has said why they are useful (half of my first post was explaining why n-gons ARE useful).
Rebuttals aside, and this whole n-gon discussion, so far no one has been complaining about the new b-meshes, so that’s a sign of our approval for it :).
Glaurung: N-gons are faces with more than 4 vertices, which is convenient because you can have a solid face with any number of vertices without having to worry about filling it in with quads or tris. The core of this n-gon argument is that it’s a no-no in topology theory, but can be useful if you knife it an fix the mesh until you do.
N-Gons are bad? well look into architecture how useful they are there.
BTW if you think N-Gons and subsurface is a bad thing you might want
to look into T-Splines. There you have T-Edges, 5 point faces and NO
crazy surface distortion.
Claas
Weee, more options!
If you don’t like N-Gons DON’T USE THEM!
…and if you do, then do!
—
Kevin
Haw can I play this video ??
sorry
I think the easy fix would be to have a display like in LightWave 3D. It tells you whether you have tris, quads, or ngons. Not just that, but if click on the select button (it’s a “+” sign in LightWave 3D) next to the name of the polygons you want to look at, it will select all of them for you so you can see or delete them. This is really helpful since you can check to see if there are any ngons you missed or can’t see, and deal with them. In fact you could probably put a button to bring it up in the “Links and Materials” or “Mesh” box in the “Editing” panel.
As to my opinion about the inclusion of ngons: I think it’s awesome. Any extra tool that could help you finish the job is a great benefit to any artist. But same with any tool, you just need to be careful how you use it.
I think every new feature will make blender a little bit more nice to use :-)
I don’t care if this features are useful or not, I just want something to play around with… there is always a way to use it – creativity shouldn’t be blocked with blocking off new features and ideas (as long as they’re not totally crappy). They will evolve, and some day, someone creates a more or less new feature based on previous/other features – I think that’s the natural way it works always with everything.
If artists want to use ngons, they should be able to use them.
If artists want to use ortho modelling instead of uvmapping, they should be able to use it.
If artists want to use colormaps/…? as bumpmaps, they should be able to use it.
(and so on …)
It’s not the technique, but the result that counts. If it works, but is done totally unprofessional, it’s ok, as long as it’s somehow goodlooking. If you want to do it better and more professional, do it your way and leave other people doing it their way.
A beginner with the software will always produce more or less bad stuff – no matter what features he is able to use, so it just would be contraproductive for all users to hide** features or make them harder to use.
.
(**would this be an option to select this in the interface and it hides/shows buttons for you? beginner – intermediate – professional?)
.
.
.
Just my epic speech for this night ;-)
I like the joke with the baby dolphins. :D
… but I don’t like the behavior of some people here.
Telling (obviously experienced) people that they “just suck at modeling” just shows me that you’re not at the right intellectual age to discuss a topic like this seriously.
Ngon implementation ist okay imho, you have to know your tools and if bloody beginners don’t do they have to learn it the hard way.
Good night
and sorry for my english
Is it possible to let blendernation as a Community Blog and not as a personal Blog?
I mean, ok Bart is father agin, you are happy for him, COOL! But this news hasn’t to be sticked for weeks.
I know this blog is maintained by Bart himself, but this is not a reason to let that as in top of the headlines.
ToastBusters: I’ll just address some of your points. . .
Its odd maya doesn’t support ngons in their subsurfer, because doing ngons in catmull-clarke isn’t hard (blender’s subsurf code has supported ngons from the beginning, for example, even in the old subsurf code we used to have).
For texture mapping, theres something called mean value coordinates to get better texture mapping.
Also, you’d think an exporter would just triangulate ngons itself. . .its rather
stupid if it doesn’t.
The deformation problem hopefully won’t be as big as an issue for subsurfed
ngons, since blender’s subsurfer actually handles ’em. for non subsurfed stuff
you’ll likely run into weird results due to the tesselated faces not being where
you want them to be :) (eh for low-level drawing operators a tesselated (triangluated) version of the ngon is used).
humble: well I wouldn’t say that. Personally the reflex reaction of there always being *someone* who speaks up and derides major new coding stuff gets really old really fast. I can understand why some people would get fed up with it, though of course being rude doesn’t help either :)
Joe
This video is really the “wrongest” exemple of the usage and interest of NGONS.
NGONs is not used for a final model, NGONs is useful for boxmodeling first, even face by face modeling anyway. It allows you to rough quickly your model without stressing for tris and quads.
How many time you wasn’t frustrated with the current Mesh struct when you cut edge/face to get new shape, indeed it creates unecessary tris which you are forced to fix quickly and by that, your workflow is slowed down, you don’t have to do that in the sketching step and even after for each cut you’ll make.
Sometime you need some temporary five points poly to develop a specific shape, people having created folds, muscles from the boxmodeling technic knows what i mean.
This is the main advantage for the user, this is not a finality.
Regards.
i can do the same thing twice as fast in Blender 2.45, while keeping a clean mesh ;)….if this gets into blender 2.46…i will stick to 2.45….. i got use to it…and i’m modelling quite fast with it
N-gons = more opportunities and faster workflow, regardless of the # of verts per face you end up with therefore…
N-gons = good thing(in my book).
Those who say that Ngons are bad just don’t have enough knowledges about them. Ngons are not bad, triangels are not bad either, even when it comes to Subdivision modeling. You just need to know were and when to use them.
B-mesh not only “ngons in blender” there are more benefits than ngons. It could also bring more and better tools, more advanced selections system etc. Heres a quote from the wiki:
“The creation of a newer and more advanced modeling system benefits not oplnly programmers imementing Mesh Tools but the Blender Community as well. New advanced construction tools such as per-edge bevel which were, for all practical purposes, impossible under the old EditMesh system can now become realities. Furthermore current EditMesh tools ported to the new system will, in general, be faster and more robust.”
Can’t wait until B-mesh gets fully integrated in blender.
Go Briggs!
blender already has functions to select quads/tris, none quads/tris.. so I imagine this will just get expanded to ngons when they arrive. (or that it would be easy enough to do so)
I initially used Blender for its modeling superiority – and I hope bmesh continues this legacy.
Well I have faith in the people that are coding this bmesh, because they are probably the same people who coded the original stuff.
Ngons are good for large, architectural stuff where you don’t want to waste too much scene memory, and render time.
Obviously if its causing weird shading or deformations – just continue to model the way you always have, without them!
Many great modelers are using software that allows ngons.
Artists need not worry!
I think you guys should realise that ZanQdo’s video is more about showing off the features and possibilities of the new system, rather than a ‘recommended modelling workflow’ Of course some of the things he’s doing seem roundabout and obtuse, he’s merely trying to show off what the system can do.
The idea that not supporting an extremely useful feature that’s common to just about every other 3d modeller is Blender’s ‘finest’ is patently absurd.
You can shoot yourself in the foot with ngons just as much as you can with tris or poles. It’s extremely easy for a beginner modeller in Blender to make models with poles, tris, wacky topology, that derforms weirdly, unwraps terribly, renders subsurfed with errors, and all sorts of things that would make you cry. All it takes is an understanding of modelling and the pitfalls of certain topology, the same thing that you already employ currently in Blender when deciding when to use tris or poles. The idea that ngons are going to somehow sneak their way into your model unawares is nothing more than fear of the unknown, and is no more of a risk than currently exists in Blender with all the tris that get left around when doing things like subdividing an edge of a face. Obviosuly if you don’t want an ngon, you take steps not to create it, and if it gets created by side-effect, you get rid of it the same way that you would an ugly bunch of triangles.
Besides, it can also be the case that using ngons rather than than tris gives far superior results. As joeedh mentioned, catmull clark subdivision goes fine with ngons, resulting in all quads. For a good example, check the images in Briggs’ post here:
http://blenderartists.org/forum/showpost.php?p=958936&postcount=6
We’ve been integrating Blender into the animation studio I work at (previously Max/Vray/Zbrush only) with great success. So far we’ve been using Blender professionally for rigging, animation, rendering, compositing, with great success. The one thing that Blender is seriously lagging behind in is modelling, and the other guys always go back to Max+polyboost any time anything needs to be modelled. Apart from the other fine tools in polyboost (which should be much easier to implement in Blender with BMesh), lack of ngons is a major hurdle to using Blender. When the others model in Max, ngons are often used in the construction stage, even when the final result is all quads. And watching them, I know why. They can be a much easier way to work creatively, and worry about getting the forms out quickly, rather than concentrating on micromanaging triangles all the time like you must in Blender.
The inclusion of BMesh (ngons, tools and all) will be a hugely significant improvement for Blender, and I can’t wait for it!
Great news! Thanks!
Greta b-mesh sounds great! Finally modelling will be much easier! (I’m not even going to talk about ngons! =P)
Yay for Blender!
A face with three sides is a tri.
A face with four sides is a quad.
A face with five or more sides is an ngon.
As long as you can have settings that let you decide if you want tris or tris and quads or tris , quads and n-gons or any other config you desire then it should be ok. But if you have little to no control then it’s just more work.
I don’t really understand what b-mesh means for modelling. Can someone divert their time from the pointless N-Gon whining to some useful help?
@ Anthony
it is about making things possible to implement that aren’t right now, or are just very hard if using the old Edit Mesh structure. For example it seems, by reading the bf-committers mailing list, that the GSoC beveling tool has just merged to the Bmesh code (because this one allows a more rational implementation of it I guess).
Other progress should follow but I am not sure which and when they will be implemented.
Jean
@ToastBusters:
You’re making up a lot of issues that have nothing to do with n-gons, really.
>> With arbitrarily shaped faces, your texture maps
>> (in addition to being difficult to layout the uvs)
>> will have a lot of unwanted stretching
Like I said, if you don’t know how to build correct models, learn how to.
This doesn’t differ at all from the workflow without n-gons, because even then you have to make sure that your faces are nice squares (as far as possible) instead of huge thin rectangles. The latter obviously gives you a lot of errors in texturing, animating and so on, and as you can see the issue exists already.
>> When you export your model to another program that
>> doesn’t support ngons, such as a game engine, you
>> will end up with a hole where your ngon was supposed to
>> be. I got burned on that one.
That all depends on the exporter. Don’t burn n-gons for that.
>> When animating, you may end up with strange deformations
Well, read my previous comment, that has been there long before n-gons.
>> although the bmesh may do this differently, Maya
>> addresses ngons internally by replacing them with
>> a bunch of triangles. Remember what I said triangles
>> do to your subsurfaced mesh?
You’ve mentioned it yourself already: Blender is not Maya.
Like Briggs once mentioned at BlenderArtists, it depends on the tesselator that creates the triangles from the polygon. Triangles are needed because your shiny 3d video card doesn’t eat anything else than triangles.
>> Ngons will drink your beer, teach your children
>> profanity and leave the toilet seat up.
Grow up your n-gons well and stimulate them to act correctly.
@Metsys:
>> Ooognsoepje: Everyone that has expressed their opinion
>> on why we choose not to use n-gons has said why they are
>> useful (half of my first post was explaining why n-gons ARE useful).
Briggs (the author of this code) is doing a lot of great work on it, and all that most people can do is whine about something that will clearly make Blender a much better modeling-program, in the same league as Wings3D, Silo and the old programs from Mirai. All of those programs I mentioned were many peoples favorites because they actually *knew* how to use the tools that were given to them.
I think that must be a real good reason to get hugely demovivated for writing this stuff, and if that happens, all of you whiners are the ones to blame when the modeling-system in Blender won’t be improved for many years to come.
Somehow, this whole “n-gons-are-bad” thing reminds me of new Blender users who say: “Blender sucks because I don’t know how to use the interface”……. and a few years later they say: “hey, it’s actually better!” and they start fanboying about how great it is.. *cough*
Please: if you don’t like n-gons, give *real* reasons for why you don’t like it. Don’t give half assed reasonings like those mentioned above, because those “issues” are not caused by n-gons or n-gons only.
That’s why I’m replying to those posts like I did. It’s annoying when people say things that are not true.
(same goes for me by the way: if I ever say anything that’s not true: debunk the myth, please!)
@Anthony:
>> I don’t really understand what b-mesh means for modelling.
>> Can someone divert their time from the pointless N-Gon
>> whining to some useful help?
BMesh is a complete replacement for the current mesh modeling system in Blender. If you have ever used programs like Wings3D, Nendo or Silo and liked the way you could model using those programs.. well, that’s what BMesh brings to Blender :)
Further than that, it’s just way more advanced than the current system, it makes it much easier for developers to add new mesh editing tools and more functionality is possible without using huge amounts of memory. The latter is because BMesh uses a mesh structure where connectivity of compontents (vertices, edges, faces) is known at all times, which is really useful for building mesh editing tools.
N-gons are just a by-product like someone else already mentioned. It’s really the whole system that makes it much better, and gives us end-users a lot more nice and useful tools for editing our meshes in the end.
So it will have better performance? I am looking forward to this, looks cool. I hope they do a rework of the keyboard shortcuts for modelling as well.
Nothing to worry about people. If you want to use ngons, then you will be able to. If you don’t then you won’t have to. There will be some situations that almost require a ngon or will just make the task easier for having them. Other tasks will be better to stick to tris and quads. Try using wings3d, it will the same as that basically, in wings3d you model exactly the same way as blender, except if you want to use ngons for a face you can, if not you can make tris and quads.
So its all good. :)
Although I think I saw a lot of handy tools being used in the video, I don’t think he made the house much different to how I would, so it’s not really changing the way we work just changing the tools we work with to speed us up… nothing wrong with that. Hopefully it’s not totally aimed at box-modelling though. It will take some getting use to but we will find it better in the end, but isn’t that what we always say to new blender user’s when they complain about the gui?
@Anthony: Depends on the implementation, but the system makes use of a faster way to display meshes as well, so yeah, in edit-mode it could very well be faster.
@Aussiedude:
>> Although I think I saw a lot of handy tools being used in the video,
>> I don’t think he made the house much different to how I would, so
>> it’s not really changing the way we work just changing the tools we
>> work with to speed us up… nothing wrong with that.
Trust me, when you start using the connect-tools, it will definitely change the way you work :) it’s much faster. The house in the video could have been build at least 10 times as fast by using the connect-tools (for which you also need n-gons, but the resulting n-gons can be connected away very easily, in very few steps).
>> but isn’t that what we always say to new blender user’s when they
>> complain about the gui?
:)
just two words for Briggs: thank you! :)
NGons are good, but probably not for new users, they might develop bad habits.
Thank you Briggs for doing all this work for us! And also ZanQdo for showing it off. :)
I’m looking forward to the new mesh system and all the goodness it makes possible.
I for one am looking forward to N-Gons in Blender it has ben well overdue and will personally speed up my workflow emenslly at the moment most of my modelling is done in wings with Blender taking care of everything else, with the introduction of N-Gons I can finally work inclusivly within Blender …thumbs up from me :)
Hey,
Thanks to ToastBusters and Metsys, who answered my question… almost all clarified. I don’t understand fully the overall discussion, but my humble opinion is that if you are tidy and organized when modelling, probably there is no need to use… but my experience in modelling is not so wide, and perhaps I would like n-gons when I had tried him…
see you, and don’t keep it so serious :-)
Glaurung
“Thanks to ToastBusters and Metsys, who answered my question… almost all clarified. I don’t understand fully the overall discussion, but my humble opinion is that if you are tidy and organized when modelling, probably there is no need to use… but my experience in modelling is not so wide, and perhaps I would like n-gons when I had tried him…”
Glaurung: Thanks. And I’ll use them when modeling as well. I just have to careful with them because of what we use our models for.
“Briggs (the author of this code) is doing a lot of great work on it, and all that most people can do is whine about something that will clearly make Blender a much better modeling-program…I think that must be a real good reason to get hugely demovivated for writing this stuff, and if that happens, all of you whiners are the ones to blame when the modeling-system in Blender won’t be improved for many years to come.”
Oogsnoepje: I don’t like it when two people go back and forth in discussions like this because someone ends up using a rebuttal like that. That’s a fallacy, and you completely twisted the discussion at the expense of everyone else reading. Let me summarize my stand on this: I already said that the new b-mesh system is a good thing, and also that since we haven’t been bashing it means that we approve. You said it yourself, n-gons are just a byproduct in it. We’ve been explaining our stand on why n-gons shouldn’t appear in the final model in a production pipeline, which are all valid real-life reasons.
As for my comments on how n-gons should be accessed in the user interface, let me clarify where I’m coming from.
I’ve been teaching Blender for two years and have seen what implementations confuse people the most. Often it’s a simple thing that, if changed, wouldn’t make Blender any less functional for power users and yet easier to teach. There are quite a few tools that are so easy to perform that it will mess them up if they don’t completely understand what else is going on. Example: Mouse gestures, click and drag with the left mouse button (as if making a box selection), the object starts moving and students don’t know why; canceling extrude mode creates duplicate vertices with no visual representation that it has happened; and the list goes on. Since I’ve been using Blender for a long time, I don’t run into those because I instinctively know how to get around them. But the people I teach have problems with it ALL THE TIME. Every semester it’s the same thing problems. If right-clicking to cancel extrude actually canceled both operations, students wouldn’t get duplicate vertices that way, and would save me from right-clicking and then CTRL-Z. If there was an option to turn off mouse gestures, I’d have it off by default so they are not entering transform modes on accident, and then when the time is right and they’ve wrapped their heads around transform modes I can teach them mouse gestures instead of teaching it right away. It’s little fixes like that. I don’t have much time to teach every semester and I wish there wasn’t so many caveats I had to cover while teaching the simple things in Blender. Again, things that if implemented slightly differently would make learning easier, an no less functional.
The new B-mesh system IS a good thing, I’ve said that before. I just felt the need to comment on how careful the creation of n-gons should be implemented in the interface. I haven’t had the opportunity to teach the Blender implementation of n-gons to students yet since it’s still in development, so I can’t directly comment on what is working well for students and what’s not. All I can say to the developers is, “please be careful.”
“‘Blender sucks because I don’t know how to use the interface’……. and a few years later they say: ‘hey, it’s actually better!'” That’s true, I see it all the time. Just please remember that I’m saying all these things from a teacher’s perspective on behalf of my students. (Maybe I have to say that I’m an instructor at the start of these discussions so people understand my intentions better.)
I’m doing to be following this new development all the way until release. Looks like it’s doing to be one of the best new features.
NGons eh? Why the argument? I’m sure a simple bit of python scripting would do a nice job of auto-removing NGons, if the BMesh interface is available to python that is! From what I understand, it could be as simple as just detecting the general shape and creating extra vertices/edges and finally faces so that they become quads. Obviously, a quad tesselator could be a tricky bit of code, but it sounds interesting enough, and probably not impossible!!…
@humble:
I thought that the comment by Oogsnoepje was meant more as a joke than anything else. (At least, it’s the sort of thing I’d say as a joke anyway!! Sorta for it’s ironic value, not that I’d mean it literally!! ;) I know some people don’t think very far ahead into how their particular humour will be taken, but I thought it was quite funny!! And I’m sure it wasn’t meant as an actual dig at somebodies chosen style of working! Be careful about putting things personally though – the comment about ‘intellectual age’ could easily have started a flame war if it had been any other forum/blog!!
I just hope Briggs doesn’t give up on this one, as it really will make mesh tools much much more powerful!! And more power, features and artistic freedom can only be good right?
~epat. :)
@Metsys:
Actually, removing the duplication after right clicking on extrude would take away a VERY useful modelling tool. Have you never wondered why it does it this way? If you duplicate vertices, it does not connect them to the originals, but if you extrude and cancel, it does. A very good use for this is when you don’t want to move the extruded vertices, but instead want to scale them inwards. It’s a very useful trick when doing box-modelling! Or if you’re going to subsurf the result afterwards for instance, you can create some good eye sockets like this!! I agree about the mouse gestures though… but I think you’ll find that customizing them (and probably disabling them too) is on the todo list for the events rewrite! Even if it isn’t, the reason it has not been changed is probably because the whole events system has been on hold for ages, once the rewrite is complete, it should be dead easy to add the functionality!!
~epat. :)
@Metsys:
Actually, to prove my point, watch the first 15 seconds of the BMesh video again… Except they’re being scaled outwards in this case! I’ve been using this feature right from day one of using blender… Maybe you should be teaching your students how to use the feature right from the start instead of pretending it doesn’t exist! (Just a suggestion, maybe you already are ;)
~epat. :)
epat, you can scale extruded verts without canceling out of the extrude. E key, then S key.
On topic, I think the b-mesh improvements look great. Thanks, Briggs.
quote from razvan:
“I can do the same thing twice as fast in Blender 2.45, while keeping a clean mesh ;)….if this gets into blender 2.46…i will stick to 2.45….. i got use to it…and i’m modelling quite fast with it.”
This sounds really weird. Its not like bmesh is going to force you to use ngons
or produce them when you don’t want them (except for certain tools that have to do that, mostly bevel and winged extrude).
Joe
Hello there ,
I watched the movie and can’t identify that N-Gons ….
The blender is a little confused to play with ,
at the first place when still learning..if you get out for a while than back to blender creations …
its too much keyboard shortcuts to remember …
And that HotKey reference is always old from Blender’s site tutorial section …
MY NEW IDEAS FOR BLENDER !!!!
For Blender menus ,i think that must have a option on User Preferences for display a screenshot
example about what that feature does .When moves the cursor over the menus .
And maybe the screenshot as a little Animated Gif for display it applications .
And an inside search for help\find a Keyboard Shortcut about what you want to do …
By example you write CUT at the search box ,
then it displays a panel with the Keyboard Shortcuts ,where menu shortcuts ,
and an explication about it and how and where applicable .
And maybe an AI feature enabled\disabled from a button that knows what are you try to do
displaying an fade in\out text at the corner as a link for the help content .
Must have a option from an easy keyboard button for enable\disable the auto alignment at any rotation from 3D persperctive .
Frist you press the button for mark yes\no for a secondary x,y,z to mark it as a point to it from current perspective,
then later when you are rotating the object you keep press that button
for move it vertice\face.. from any perspective only at that previously marked point to that perspective .It would be nice .
And that is My epic ideas for this night .Thanks .
Yeah ,and that animation at the menus i imagine like ..
Following the gray background from menu ,and the object a little more darkness gray color
with a yellow display of it actions on the animation loop .
Simple ,clean and useful .
Than Blender will be an even more powerfull 3D application for everyone !!!
And all the help apearence at the same design .
NGons are great! What about the release plans of Blender 2.50? When will we see the first RC? I can’t wait ;)
@Metsys:
>> I don’t like it when two people go back and forth in discussions
>> like this because someone ends up using a rebuttal like that.
>> That’s a fallacy, and you completely twisted the discussion at
>> the expense of everyone else reading. Let me summarize my stand
>> on this: I already said that the new b-mesh system is a good thing,
>> and also that since we haven’t been bashing it means that we approve.
>> You said it yourself, n-gons are just a byproduct in it. We’ve been
>> explaining our stand on why n-gons shouldn’t appear in the final model
>> in a production pipeline, which are all valid real-life reasons.
Just to clearify, that part of what I wrote in reply to what you said there was just a rant (in general) about what developers of open source software have to put up with at certain times. I think it’s a good thing that people realize what they can do with their words.
@epat:
Exactly :)
I usually do think quite far ahead though, I just happened to learn how to ignore some issues. If someone takes a joke as a personal insult, I’d say: read it again. Does it really come accross as a personal message that was specifically written with you in mind?
And to be honest, there’s a kind of history in the dig from first post as well.. you know, we’ve all been new to this stuff…… it could have been a joke about my own history, who knows?
(for those who don’t know yet: I just *love* to dig on myself, I can’t hurt anyone but myself with it!)
One can read my posts in only so many ways, pick one that goes along with your feelings I’d say :)
Brilliant now we can use modeling tutorials for other apps aswell that use ngons I am really happy specially seeing as the first app I used had ngon support
It’s funny how everybody speaks and moans hystericaly about upcoming not fully developed feature that they probably haven’t tried at all…my advice for you is to wait for blender release with full working B-mesh (and N-gons too:)) feature and stop speaking loudly too soon (because theory not always are same in practice…),….
P.s:In other hand such a moaning and whining before final version is totaly disrespect for B-mesh developers….
You’ve got to be kidding me, this B-Mesh stuff look awesome.
This bitching about polygons is pointless.
You know, the Blender Community needs to be less reactive to trolls. One person makes a negative comment and it becomes an avalanche of negativity and cannibalism. It happens way too often.
I think that we should just be very grateful that there are people consuming precious time out of their precious lives to create new features in Blender. It really doesn’t matter if you like a particular feature or not. Don’t use it if you don’t like it or if you don’t feel that it’s relevant to the things that you normally do in Blender. Blender’s feature-set covers quite a bit and everything in it can’t always be of benefit to everyone’s particular way of using Blender.
A lot of thought and consideration goes into determining if a particular feature will be added to Blender so, 30 seconds of judgment on the issue really doesn’t compare to the weeks and months of effort on the part of the developer(s).
Yes Kernon, this is probably the fate of free software…
imagine people whining on maya forums because the devs plan to implement new features to make life easier for the user. This is as ridiculous as this discussion here.
So, please say THANK YOU, I wanna say THANK YOU because I can use a very good, state-of-the-art software for free. THANK YOU, developers!
:-)
Mayby i didn´t understood realy what b-mesh is. But it looks intresting and like a very complex development part and its not final yet. But iam very intrested to test it …some day – when it is “final”. And then i can say something about.
Till then – iam happy that so many people spending so much of there time to bring blender forward.
Guys come on, if you put ngons and an improved interface in the next version, how are you gonna be able to sell the following one? Think about marketing!… what?
I also want to say: Thank You for developers :)
So NGons are becoming a reality. Nice.
“The point of the matter is, having the option of NGons is better than not having it at all.”
-Azrael Posted: Fri Dec 08, 2006 3:59 am on Blender.org
Well, apart from NGons, I see nothing new in this video, it’s all the usual extruding / subdividing / deleting / making faces. Or am I missing something?
(I would have hoped for something a la Google Sketchup: “Cut hole into wall”, or “Make wall thick”…)
Lucas is great with his “Clippy” proposal :)
OK, after having read all comments, here’s my conclusion:
I don’t think that showing this video does any good. It just demonstrates a totally normal modeling workflow, and apart from the NGons (which everyone seems to complain about), it doesn’t show anything new. As it seems like the “ground-breaking” novelty in B-Mesh is just the *implementation*, it’s pointless to show a video of it, as many others will think “Uhm, what’s so great about it” – just like me at first – because the implementation can’t be seen in a video. Better post a bit of technical text :)
More tools more fun. I personally look forward to trying any new future feature within blender. Blender is the only 3d software I’m familiar with and I’d hate to have learn to use another, so as long as blender stays somewhat recognizable over the coming years I’ll have no complaints.
I am looking forward to having Blender teaching profanities to my children.
Will it be possible to disable the “drink my beer” option ?
I think all this discussion about N-Gons is pointless : these are an interface feature, which happens to be suitable for demonstration… and suit some users’ needs. Speculating on the fact that there will/won’t be a way to disable them, that they should be disabled by default for teaching … are also UI considerations : it is just as irrelevant as complaining about the UI of the “make tree from curve” function currently being implemented by Campbell Barton.
When this feature will be implemented, then it will be easy to say to beginners : “Disable N-Gons with button dah-dah” ; it will even be easier “not to” tell them to draw N-Gons, but to draw squares instead… as usual. By the way, good tutorials on topology are difficult to find… (do gurus prefer to write about the ugliness of still non-official features ?).
What I find important is, if they make development easier, then later, our much respected developers will be able to implement more new tools. It means that “some day”, there can be more reliable booleans, or a more convenient knife tool, or a really fast way to punch holes in a mesh. That day, we will build statues of Briggs in every city (reference images, someone ?).
@Alexander: what is new is the ability to have the edges of two faces connecting to one face. Watch when he makes the door – The left wall is one big face, and initially the door section is split into two, like an H formation. In current Blender, that whole side of the house would have to have been split horizontally into six faces, and then corresponding edges would have to be moved to make the right door shape, resulting in a lot of extra edge grabbing (to keep things lined up square). This way is a lot simpler and easier. Thanks Briggs!
Just thought I’d throw my 2 cents in here…
I’m by now means an expert or even decent modeler, but I’ve tinkered around with 3D apps before and I’m currently getting into Blender. Having a Maya background, I’m finding it EXCEEDINGLY difficult to re-learn to model in Blender, even with video tutorials, the main reason being the lack of N-Gons.
Now before I get flamed, hear me out… The methods used to correct triangles in Blender organinc modeling are kind of mind-boggling to me. It’s very helpful to cut only a specific face in half (temporarily creating an N-Gon) then merging a few verts. Triangle GONE! :D But without this capability, it required a multi-step process to get rid of unwanted topology which for me at least, is difficult to visualize.
Any word on when this will be integrated into Blender? This looks like its part of the general re-code everything project that is 2.5, so should we expect B-Mesh in 2.5?
Sorry for Double-Post!
What do you mean wen you use the term “poles”? I was under the impression pole was another term for a quad, but many here are presenting them as a negative analagous to tris or N-Gons.