Weld Modifier Proposal #70240

New Issue

Motivation

While modifiers such as spin, mirror & array can merge duplicates, there are times when
Some modifier setups don't can't as easily predict duplicate geometry.

Examples include:

Curve modifier deforming an object that loops back on it's self.
Bend modifier causing opposite edges touching when bending 360 degrees.
Beveled curves which taper to a point (although this could be supported without a modifier)

Lots of comments from users on
this thread .

Proposal

Seams: restrict welding to vertices along boundary edges.
Edge Collapse: collapse edges below the length threshold.
Vertex Group: option to limit welding to vertex groups.

There will be two methods available:

Simple (default)

This would be a fast weld operation that would support common welding operations - weld-seams/collapse-edges
although other cases could be supported in the future.

Merging geometry that would cause degenerate faces will be skipped
(this requires much more complex operation to properly handle).

(internally this will manipulate the Mesh structure without requiring it to be converted into BMesh).

Full

This would perform a full merge-by-distance,
with support for resolving degenerate cases, documented to be much slower
then the Simple operation.

(this can use the existing merge-by-distance code)

Pros

Fast by default, for merging boundaries of disconnected surfaces.
The ability only to merge a small subset of vertices should speed up the operation in most real world uses.

Cons

The Full merge-by-distance code uses a method that depends on vertex order

(picking all vertices closest to vertices at the start of the mesh). This means changing the vertex order of the input may cause the result
to *jitter*.

The Simple method will have limitations which might be hard to understand. Ideally we wouldn't have to select between two methods.

**Motivation** While modifiers such as spin, mirror & array can merge duplicates, there are times when Some modifier setups don't can't as easily predict duplicate geometry. Examples include: - Curve modifier deforming an object that loops back on it's self. - Bend modifier causing opposite edges touching when bending 360 degrees. - Beveled curves which taper to a point *(although this could be supported without a modifier)* Lots of comments from users on [this thread ](https://devtalk.blender.org/t/hurdles-to-implementing-merge-modifier/9718). **Proposal** - Seams: restrict welding to vertices along boundary edges. - Edge Collapse: collapse edges below the length threshold. - Vertex Group: option to limit welding to vertex groups. There will be two methods available: - **Simple** (default) ``` This would be a fast weld operation that would support common welding operations - weld-seams/collapse-edges although other cases could be supported in the future. ``` ``` Merging geometry that would cause degenerate faces will be skipped (this requires much more complex operation to properly handle). ``` *(internally this will manipulate the `Mesh` structure without requiring it to be converted into `BMesh`).* - **Full** ``` This would perform a full merge-by-distance, with support for resolving degenerate cases, documented to be much slower then the Simple operation. ``` *(this can use the existing merge-by-distance code)* ---- **Pros** - Fast by default, for merging boundaries of disconnected surfaces. - The ability only to merge a small subset of vertices should speed up the operation in most real world uses. **Cons** - The **Full** merge-by-distance code uses a method that depends on vertex order ``` (picking all vertices closest to vertices at the start of the mesh). This means changing the vertex order of the input may cause the result to *jitter*. ``` - The **Simple** method will have limitations which might be hard to understand. Ideally we wouldn't have to select between two methods.

Added subscriber: @ideasman42

Added subscriber: @howardt

Pointing out that some of the desire for this comes from the fact that the Bevel modifier can, as a result of clamping, put vertices on top of each other, and users would like them merged. As Campbell points out, the Bevel modifier itself could be changed to detect and merge in such cases. I would have done so if it were easy, but it is not so easy (the current code that merges nearby vertices gets quite complicated), so was delaying -- especially as my eventual goal is to get rid of clamping completely and continue beveling after such collisions cause merges.

All this is to say: restricting this to only happen at boundaries (seams) may not accomplish everything people want, so if possible that should be an option rather than a requirement,

Pointing out that some of the desire for this comes from the fact that the Bevel modifier can, as a result of clamping, put vertices on top of each other, and users would like them merged. As Campbell points out, the Bevel modifier itself could be changed to detect and merge in such cases. I would have done so if it were easy, but it is not so easy (the current code that merges nearby vertices gets quite complicated), so was delaying -- especially as my eventual goal is to get rid of clamping completely and continue beveling after such collisions cause merges. All this is to say: restricting this to only happen at boundaries (seams) may not accomplish everything people want, so if possible that should be an option rather than a requirement,

Added subscriber: @Dspazio

@howardt wouldn't collapsing edges handle this case?

We should be able to support this as long as it doesn't result in faces using the same edge/vertex twice.

@howardt wouldn't collapsing edges handle this case? We should be able to support this as long as it doesn't result in faces using the same edge/vertex twice.

Collapsing edges would mostly handle that case, yes. I wasn't sure whether you intended to support that everywhere or just as part of handling merges across boundaries, but thinking about it, you must have meant the former, because the latter wouldn't come up in most cases, if ever.

One case that your Simple solution would rule out: cases where bevel acts as an inset into a particular face (because all edges around that face are beveled). At some point, the inner face of the inset disappears (always, for triangles; for regular polygons otherwise). Users would probably like that face to go away and all the points of the inner face to weld together. And a variant on this: sometimes the inner face degenerates into a line (e.g., insetting a rectangle).

Collapsing edges would mostly handle that case, yes. I wasn't sure whether you intended to support that everywhere or just as part of handling merges across boundaries, but thinking about it, you must have meant the former, because the latter wouldn't come up in most cases, if ever. One case that your Simple solution would rule out: cases where bevel acts as an inset into a particular face (because all edges around that face are beveled). At some point, the inner face of the inset disappears (always, for triangles; for regular polygons otherwise). Users would probably like that face to go away and all the points of the inner face to weld together. And a variant on this: sometimes the inner face degenerates into a line (e.g., insetting a rectangle).

Added subscriber: @cedriclepiller

I can add some others examples we talked about in the Bevel modifier thread.

One more from fiendish55
https://i.imgur.com/PfjPJ8K.gifv

Maybe it could be possible with modifiers (bevel, merge, triangulate on ngons) to achieve this kind of non-destructive beveling.
c043c82a09.gif

I can add some others examples we talked about in the Bevel modifier thread. ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7774581/image.png) ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7774586/image.png) ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F7774589/image.png) One more from fiendish55 https://i.imgur.com/PfjPJ8K.gifv Maybe it could be possible with modifiers (bevel, merge, triangulate on ngons) to achieve this kind of non-destructive beveling. https://devtalk.blender.org/uploads/default/original/1X/c043c82a09a5ea04bc1b1bd4c8962e9f2d9b3d72.gif

Added subscriber: @Helo

Added subscriber: @Spatz

Added subscriber: @MatthewHeimlich

Please keep things like multires in mind during the design process. One of the best use cases that I can imagine for this kind of modifier is for sculptors who wish to split objects that should visibly be contiguous into multiple pieces so that they can really crank up the level of subdivision on each individual part for multires sculpting while still having them act like a single mesh for animation, edit mode, etc.

Added subscriber: @Josephbburg

I'm curious if this is planned to support joining objects, or only work on a single object? Sometimes in animation it would be nice to merge edges of objects together (hand/sleeve for example).

Added subscriber: @0rAngE

@Josephbburg it's possible although it wouldn't be a target for the first version of this patch.

Also, this feature seems better suited to a grouping than a single objects modifier - where all objects in the group have their seams welded.

@Josephbburg it's possible although it wouldn't be a target for the first version of this patch. Also, this feature seems better suited to a grouping than a single objects modifier - where all objects in the group have their seams welded.

Added subscriber: @ErickNyanduKabongo

In #70240#783915, @MatthewHeimlich wrote:
Please keep things like multires in mind during the design process. One of the best use cases that I can imagine for this kind of modifier is for sculptors who wish to split objects that should visibly be contiguous into multiple pieces so that they can really crank up the level of subdivision on each individual part for multires sculpting while still having them act like a single mesh for animation, edit mode, etc.

I second this, If you guys can make it work, we will have a very powerful multires.

> In #70240#783915, @MatthewHeimlich wrote: > Please keep things like multires in mind during the design process. One of the best use cases that I can imagine for this kind of modifier is for sculptors who wish to split objects that should visibly be contiguous into multiple pieces so that they can really crank up the level of subdivision on each individual part for multires sculpting while still having them act like a single mesh for animation, edit mode, etc. I second this, If you guys can make it work, we will have a very powerful multires.

Added subscriber: @Ariel-Tavori

Added subscriber: @Tosky

The "full method" use the existing merge-by-distance code; it's right to say that will give us options like 'merge at first/last/3dcursor' and peraphs Empty? Because that could open new scenarios.

@Tosky, these don't make sense for modifiers since defining operations on individual vertices doesn't fit well with the current modifier stack.

Added subscriber: @BartekMoniewski

Added subscriber: @AnadinX

Added subscriber: @darrelljuk

Added subscriber: @MarcelLegindi

Hi,
Any update about this modifier for 2.82?

Hi, Any update about this modifier for 2.82?

@cedriclepiller after 2.81 release.

Ok, thank you for your answer ;)

Added subscriber: @lemenicier_julien

Added subscriber: @item412

Added subscriber: @LapisSea

Added subscriber: @dupoxy

Added subscriber: @FrancoisRimasson

I wish to be able to collapse edge with no faces around (ie : edges used for sewing garments in the cloth modifier)

I wish to be able to collapse edge with no faces around (ie : edges used for sewing garments in the cloth modifier) ![image.png](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F8191971/image.png)

Added subscribers: @mano-wii, @brecht

@mano-wii, can you close this task and create a follow-up task for remaining improvements to the weld modifier, so we can consider this one finished for the release?

If there are still things to improve for 2.82, please create another task for that and tag it with the Blender 2.82 milestone.

@mano-wii, can you close this task and create a follow-up task for remaining improvements to the weld modifier, so we can consider this one finished for the release? If there are still things to improve for 2.82, please create another task for that and tag it with the Blender 2.82 milestone.

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Resolved'

As the main goal of this task (Weld Modifier Implementation) has already been resolved, closing.
Remaining proposals moved to #73139 (Weld Modifier Improvements).

As the main goal of this task (Weld Modifier Implementation) has already been resolved, closing. Remaining proposals moved to #73139 (Weld Modifier Improvements).

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

Weld Modifier Proposal #70240