Cycles baking artifacts #52573

New Issue

marc dion · 2017-08-29T03:12:15+02:00

marc dion commented

2017-08-29 03:12:15 +02:00

System Information
Windows 10 16GB, GTX 965 2GB

Blender Version
Broken: 2.78.5(2acd05b) is broken along with every newer version that I tested.
Worked: 2.78.4(67bef6b) works as expected

Short description of error

There are strange dark artifacts showing up for simple blocks that are placed near one another. The artifacts that show up look like they are being baked in from some hidden object but there are no other objects hidden in the scene nor are there objects on any other layer.

The error happens for both CPU and GPU and also for 'Combined' and 'Ambient Occlusion' bakes.

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error
Open the included blend file and press bake.

bevelNode.blend

**System Information** Windows 10 16GB, GTX 965 2GB **Blender Version** Broken: 2.78.5(2acd05b) is broken along with every newer version that I tested. Worked: 2.78.4(67bef6b) works as expected **Short description of error** There are strange dark artifacts showing up for simple blocks that are placed near one another. The artifacts that show up look like they are being baked in from some hidden object but there are no other objects hidden in the scene nor are there objects on any other layer. The error happens for both CPU and GPU and also for 'Combined' and 'Ambient Occlusion' bakes. ![correct.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F736725/correct.png) ![errors.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F736727/errors.png) **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** Open the included blend file and press bake. [bevelNode.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F736732/bevelNode.blend)

marc dion commented

2017-08-29 03:12:15 +02:00

Changed status to: 'Open'

marc dion commented

2017-08-29 03:12:15 +02:00

Added subscriber: @MarcClintDion

Dalai Felinto commented

2017-08-29 12:35:11 +02:00

Added subscriber: @dfelinto

Bastien Montagne was assigned by Dalai Felinto

2017-08-29 12:35:11 +02:00

Dalai Felinto commented

2017-08-29 12:35:11 +02:00

This was introduced in ae1c1cd8c0.
(and @MarcClintDion thanks for nailing down the bad/good range, it sped up the git bisecting here)

This was introduced in ae1c1cd8c0. (and @MarcClintDion thanks for nailing down the bad/good range, it sped up the git bisecting here)

marc dion commented

2017-08-29 15:33:06 +02:00

@dfelinto It looks like I can get away with saying "you're welcome" since no one else is subscribed yet(no one around to annoy with undue email notifications ;). I just wish I had noticed it earlier, I've been too busy to use Blender much since last winter, I just wanted to test the bevel node.

Bastien Montagne removed their assignment 2017-08-30 16:27:18 +02:00

Bastien Montagne commented

2017-08-30 16:27:18 +02:00

Added subscriber: @mont29

Bastien Montagne commented

2017-08-30 16:27:18 +02:00

Face splitting code is not the issue here. Took me some time to dig the culprit out of the shadows: our (old) quad rule stating that 'forth vertex of quad cannot be first one in mesh array (i.e. one with index 0), because we use zero forth vert index in our old (now only used for tessellation) Face data to mark it as a triangle. So... funny tessellation code has to rotate quad faces which happen to end on zeroth vertex.

Fun fact is, after faces have been split, two of the three that were using zeroth vert are now using newly generated ones, with higher indices, which mean tessellation will not rotate them anymore.

So, the issue here is the mismatch between Cycles code (object_to_mesh() in blender_utils.h) and baking code (bake_mesh_new_from_object() in object_bake_api.c), the later always splitting faces, while the former only does in in some specific cases. This leads to mismatches between generated meshes, in some unfortunate cases, a few faces will be rotated.

Am not sure how to solve this right (first and simplest idea would be to bring face splitting or not in baking code to match the one in Cycles - but we do not have access to Cycles subsurf stuff here afaik). But this is not my area of code really, should be handled by someone understanding baking/Cycles code better.

And this is not actually a regression, at least not from ae1c1cd8c0. The issue potentially exists since we use BMesh and polygons, it just did not triggered for some reason in this example with previous (rather broken) splitting code, but pretty sure one could forge faulty cases with previous code as well. It's mostly a matter of specific unfortunate corner case here.

Face splitting code is not the issue here. Took me some time to dig the culprit out of the shadows: our (old) quad rule stating that 'forth vertex of quad **cannot** be first one in mesh array (i.e. one with index 0), because we use zero forth vert index in our old (now only used for tessellation) Face data to mark it as a triangle. So... funny tessellation code has to rotate quad faces which happen to end on zeroth vertex. Fun fact is, after faces have been split, two of the three that were using zeroth vert are now using newly generated ones, with higher indices, which mean tessellation will not rotate them anymore. So, the issue here is the mismatch between Cycles code (`object_to_mesh()` in blender_utils.h) and baking code (`bake_mesh_new_from_object()` in object_bake_api.c), the later always splitting faces, while the former only does in in some specific cases. This leads to mismatches between generated meshes, in some unfortunate cases, a few faces will be rotated. Am not sure how to solve this right (first and simplest idea would be to bring face splitting or not in baking code to match the one in Cycles - but we do not have access to Cycles subsurf stuff here afaik). But this is not my area of code really, should be handled by someone understanding baking/Cycles code better. And this is not actually a regression, at least not from ae1c1cd8c0. The issue potentially exists since we use BMesh and polygons, it just did not triggered for some reason in this example with previous (rather broken) splitting code, but pretty sure one could forge faulty cases with previous code as well. It's mostly a matter of specific unfortunate corner case here.

marc dion commented

2017-08-30 17:01:44 +02:00

This comment was removed by @MarcClintDion

*This comment was removed by @MarcClintDion*

marc dion commented

2017-08-31 01:06:10 +02:00

This comment was removed by @MarcClintDion

*This comment was removed by @MarcClintDion*

blender-admin commented

2017-09-12 13:33:42 +02:00

This issue was referenced by fadc079740

This issue was referenced by fadc0797403070adb517ebe0f02801470334c9ab