Mesh to Volume node inconsistent with concave corners #127129

Closed
opened 2024-09-04 03:51:16 +02:00 by Harry McKenzie · 5 comments

System Information
Operating system: Windows-10-10.0.22621-SP0 64 Bits
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.6.0 NVIDIA 474.30

Blender Version
Broken: version: 4.2.0, branch: blender-v4.2-release, commit date: 2024-07-16 06:20, hash: a51f293548ad
Worked: Never

Short description of error
When you add a Mesh to Volume node to a perfectly 90-degree shape, like this T-shaped example, it results in excess volume on one concave corner, which is not consistent with the other concave corner. In the image, the original cuboid shape is shown from a top view on the left, with two faces extruded in opposite directions, forming a T-shaped cuboid. One object is then applied with a Mesh to Volume density of 1.0, and the other with a density of 50.0 to exaggerate the volume effect, making the problem more apparent.

image

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error
Add a plane and subdivide it once, then remove half of it. Extrude along the Z axis, then extrude one face perpendicularly in opposite directions to achieve the shape shown in the screenshot. Next, add a Geometry Node modifier, and then add a Mesh to Volume node. Set the density to 50.0.

image
**System Information** Operating system: Windows-10-10.0.22621-SP0 64 Bits Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX TITAN/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.6.0 NVIDIA 474.30 **Blender Version** Broken: version: 4.2.0, branch: blender-v4.2-release, commit date: 2024-07-16 06:20, hash: `a51f293548ad` Worked: Never **Short description of error** When you add a Mesh to Volume node to a perfectly 90-degree shape, like this T-shaped example, it results in excess volume on one concave corner, which is not consistent with the other concave corner. In the image, the original cuboid shape is shown from a top view on the left, with two faces extruded in opposite directions, forming a T-shaped cuboid. One object is then applied with a Mesh to Volume density of 1.0, and the other with a density of 50.0 to exaggerate the volume effect, making the problem more apparent. <img width="1021" alt="image" src="attachments/6a677781-7ba7-48c0-b041-d02e95e46093"> **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** Add a plane and subdivide it once, then remove half of it. Extrude along the Z axis, then extrude one face perpendicularly in opposite directions to achieve the shape shown in the screenshot. Next, add a Geometry Node modifier, and then add a Mesh to Volume node. Set the density to 50.0. <img width="798" alt="image" src="attachments/bc4c2935-792b-48dc-a0eb-459753460867">
Harry McKenzie added the
Status
Needs Triage
Severity
Normal
Type
Bug
labels 2024-09-04 03:51:17 +02:00
Member

I'd say this is generally expected since volume is represented as voxels and densities are decided on sampling the mesh. So you will always get a little bit more "smoothing" effect, especially when voxel size is big. See the file below for an example.

I'd say this is generally expected since volume is represented as voxels and densities are decided on sampling the mesh. So you will always get a little bit more "smoothing" effect, especially when voxel size is big. See the file below for an example.
Author

I'd say this is generally expected since volume is represented as voxels and densities are decided on sampling the mesh. So you will always get a little bit more "smoothing" effect, especially when voxel size is big. See the file below for an example.

Thank you for your response. The thing is, it is inconsistent, should it not be the same for "same" corners, why would it appear differently in both corners? That is quite confusing. The thing is it will create a problem like this one here and there is no solution. https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/323847/mesh-to-volume-node-rounding-concave-corners-causes-unwanted-excess-blocks

> I'd say this is generally expected since volume is represented as voxels and densities are decided on sampling the mesh. So you will always get a little bit more "smoothing" effect, especially when voxel size is big. See the file below for an example. Thank you for your response. The thing is, it is inconsistent, should it not be the same for "same" corners, why would it appear differently in both corners? That is quite confusing. The thing is it will create a problem like this one here and there is no solution. https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/323847/mesh-to-volume-node-rounding-concave-corners-causes-unwanted-excess-blocks
Member

Well if you move the mesh in edit mode, you will see that the corner treatment would change depending on how it lands on the voxel border, so it's not really "only one corner shows the effect". Sometimes it's both, sometimes you will have concave corners eaten as well. A way to minimize the effect is simply reduce the voxel size.

Do you have a specific use case where pin-accurate volume boundary from mesh is required? In which case would a volume absorption/scatter shader on the mesh be a viable option?

Well if you move the mesh in edit mode, you will see that the corner treatment would change depending on how it lands on the voxel border, so it's not really "only one corner shows the effect". Sometimes it's both, sometimes you will have concave corners eaten as well. A way to minimize the effect is simply reduce the voxel size. Do you have a specific use case where pin-accurate volume boundary from mesh is required? In which case would a volume absorption/scatter shader on the mesh be a viable option?

Thanks for the report, but the issue reported here is a request for modified/improved behavior and not a bug in current behavior. Closing as this bug tracker is only for bugs and errors.

For user requests and feedback, please use other channels: https://developer.blender.org/docs/handbook/communication/user_feedback/

For more information on why this isn't considered a bug, visit: https://developer.blender.org/docs/handbook/bug_reports/not_a_bug/

Thanks for the report, but the issue reported here is a request for modified/improved behavior and not a bug in current behavior. Closing as this bug tracker is only for bugs and errors. For user requests and feedback, please use other channels: https://developer.blender.org/docs/handbook/communication/user_feedback/ For more information on why this isn't considered a bug, visit: https://developer.blender.org/docs/handbook/bug_reports/not_a_bug/
Blender Bot added
Status
Archived
and removed
Status
Needs Triage
labels 2024-09-04 06:52:35 +02:00
Author

@ChengduLittleA Thank you for looking into this; your time is highly appreciated. You are correct that reducing the voxel size will help, but unfortunately, it would only work for certain meshes, while it would break for others with different voxel sizes. If the voxel size were disconnected and manually reduced, it could theoretically be adjusted for a specific mesh, but it would then cause issues for other meshes. As it is currently configured, this setup works for every mesh. Disconnecting it would only work for certain meshes, as it would no longer be in sync with the entire setup. Do you have any ideas on how to work around this? This is the blend https://blend-exchange.com/b/kB3920y5/

image
@ChengduLittleA Thank you for looking into this; your time is highly appreciated. You are correct that reducing the voxel size will help, but unfortunately, it would only work for certain meshes, while it would break for others with different voxel sizes. If the voxel size were disconnected and manually reduced, it could theoretically be adjusted for a specific mesh, but it would then cause issues for other meshes. As it is currently configured, this setup works for every mesh. Disconnecting it would only work for certain meshes, as it would no longer be in sync with the entire setup. Do you have any ideas on how to work around this? This is the blend https://blend-exchange.com/b/kB3920y5/ <img width="944" alt="image" src="attachments/306dc609-1c88-49ee-8a85-8bbf09dffe5e">
155 KiB
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset System
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Code Documentation
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Viewport & EEVEE
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Asset Browser Project
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Module
Viewport & EEVEE
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Severity
High
Severity
Low
Severity
Normal
Severity
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
3 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#127129
No description provided.