Dissolve can create duplicate faces / invalid geometry (leading to crashes on further modeling operators such as Subdivide Edges) #70977

New Issue

Open

opened 2019-10-21 01:07:59 +02:00 by Stanislav Blinov · 18 comments

Stanislav Blinov commented 2019-10-21 01:07:59 +02:00

Copy Link

System Information
Operating system:
Graphics card:

Blender Version
Broken: 2.81 R970d7ed all the way back to 2.70a
Worked: likely never

Short description of error
Using the dissolve tool it's possible to create faces sharing the same boundary edges.

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error (using Dissolve Faces):
Based on the default startup .blend file,

1. Enter Edit Mode with Tab and select a face.
2. Invert selection Ctrl-I and dissolve the selected faces to leave just one square in the 3d viewport
3. Use the Edge -> Subdivide operator in Edit Mode
4. In the Adjust Last Operator panel try to increase the value of the Number of Cuts field by pressing the right arrow
5. The program crashes immediately.

See also #120143 for a example of .blend file that crashes

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error (using Dissolve Vertices):

1. In the default scene, edit the cube.
2. In vertex selection mode, select one face (4 vertices).
3. Still in vertex mode, dissolve using {key Ctrl X}.

You should be left with a "plane" that has 4 vertices, 4 edges, and 2 faces. None of the options for the Dissolve Selection (the ctrl+x) tool seem to help against it. I don't think that any of the built-in clean up helpers can detect these either, at least directly. Select Non-Manifold can be of some small help, if there's some adjacent geometry, but if there isn't (as in this example), it won't select anything.

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error (using Limited Dissolve):

1. Create a plane and go into Edit Mode
2. Select a triangular part by selecting 3 vertices and pressing F
3. Select the opposite triangle part by selecting another 3 vertices on the opposite side
4. Press A and X > Limited Dissolve
5. Notice that you have 2 faces now.
6. Repeat this procedure and you can have as many faces as you like all sharing exactly the same 4 vertices

Then try to dissolve one vertex with X > Dissolve Vertex. One face gets deleted.

**System Information** Operating system: Graphics card: **Blender Version** Broken: 2.81 R970d7ed all the way back to 2.70a Worked: likely never **Short description of error** Using the dissolve tool it's possible to create faces sharing the same boundary edges. **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error (using __Dissolve Faces__):** Based on the default startup .blend file, 1. Enter Edit Mode with Tab and select a face. 2. Invert selection Ctrl-I and dissolve the selected faces to leave just one square in the 3d viewport 3. Use the Edge -> Subdivide operator in Edit Mode 4. In the Adjust Last Operator panel try to increase the value of the Number of Cuts field by pressing the right arrow 5. The program crashes immediately. See also #120143 for a example of .blend file that crashes **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error (using *Dissolve Vertices*):** 1. In the default scene, edit the cube. 2. In **vertex** selection mode, select one face (4 vertices). 3. Still in vertex mode, dissolve using {key Ctrl X}. You should be left with a "plane" that has 4 vertices, 4 edges, and **2** faces. None of the options for the Dissolve Selection (the ctrl+x) tool seem to help against it. I don't think that any of the built-in clean up helpers can detect these either, at least directly. Select Non-Manifold can be of some small help, if there's some adjacent geometry, but if there isn't (as in this example), it won't select anything. **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error (using *Limited Dissolve*):** 1. Create a plane and go into Edit Mode 2. Select a triangular part by selecting 3 vertices and pressing `F` 3. Select the opposite triangle part by selecting another 3 vertices on the opposite side 4. Press `A` and `X` *> Limited Dissolve* 5. Notice that you have 2 faces now. 6. Repeat this procedure and you can have as many faces as you like all sharing exactly the same 4 vertices   Then try to dissolve one vertex with `X` *> Dissolve Vertex*. One face gets deleted.

Stanislav Blinov commented 2019-10-21 01:07:59 +02:00

Author

Copy Link

Added subscriber: @Stan_Pancakes

Added subscriber: @Stan_Pancakes

blender-admin commented 2019-10-21 01:07:59 +02:00

Copy Link

#103482 was marked as duplicate of this issue

#103482 was marked as duplicate of this issue

Stanislav Blinov commented 2019-10-21 01:10:48 +02:00

Author

Copy Link

Sorry, the commit hash isn't meant to imply that commit broke the tool (i.e. the 'mention'). It's simply the hash of the beta build used.

Sorry, the commit hash isn't meant to imply that commit broke the tool (i.e. the 'mention'). It's simply the hash of the beta build used.

Rodger Davis commented 2019-10-21 07:12:06 +02:00

Copy Link

Added subscriber: @RodDavis

Added subscriber: @RodDavis

Rodger Davis commented 2019-10-21 07:12:06 +02:00

Copy Link

More info is needed.

Click "Report a bug" from blender. A template will be autofilled with the Operating System, Graphics card, and Broken build. Copy this info and paste it in this bug report.

More info is needed.  Click "Report a bug" from blender. A template will be autofilled with the **Operating System**, **Graphics card**, and **Broken build**. Copy this info and paste it in this bug report.

Stanislav Blinov commented 2019-10-21 08:28:05 +02:00

Author

Copy Link

@RodDavis, unless you mean to tell me that on your system and graphics card (which are irrelevant in this case) you're not able to reproduce the issue, the report shall stay as is, thank you very much.

@RodDavis, unless you mean to tell me that on your system and graphics card (which are irrelevant in this case) you're not able to reproduce the issue, the report shall stay as is, thank you very much.

Philipp Oeser commented 2019-10-22 13:46:19 +02:00

Member

Copy Link

Added subscribers: @mont29, @ideasman42, @lichtwerk

Added subscribers: @mont29, @ideasman42, @lichtwerk

Philipp Oeser commented 2019-10-22 13:46:19 +02:00

Member

Copy Link

Can confirm.

Not quite sure if this would be considered a bug [I guess so though], confirming for now.
Note you can always run ob.data.validate() [this will correct those kind of issues]

There is code detecting this in the corresponding part of BKE_mesh_validate_arrays (BM_mesh_validate doesnt catch this), but not sure if this is really desired? (could be slow?) Are there alternatives? implement something like IS_FACE_FACE_DUPE in bmesh_elem_check?

CC @ideasman42
CC @mont29

Can confirm. Not quite sure if this would be considered a bug [I guess so though], confirming for now. Note you can always run `ob.data.validate()` [this will correct those kind of issues] There is code detecting this in the corresponding part of `BKE_mesh_validate_arrays` (`BM_mesh_validate` doesnt catch this), but not sure if this is really desired? (could be slow?) Are there alternatives? implement something like `IS_FACE_FACE_DUPE` in `bmesh_elem_check`? CC @ideasman42 CC @mont29

Stanislav Blinov commented 2019-10-22 13:52:28 +02:00

Author

Copy Link

AFAIK, it has been like that since... pretty much since dissolve existed, I guess. So it could be dubbed a historical notabug :) Joking aside though, this kind of geometry is rather nasty, so if user-facing tools can be made to avoid creating it, IMHO it should be done.

AFAIK, it has been like that since... pretty much since dissolve existed, I guess. So it could be dubbed a historical notabug :) Joking aside though, this kind of geometry is rather nasty, so if user-facing tools can be made to avoid creating it, IMHO it should be done.

Sybren A. Stüvel changed title from Dissolve can create lamina faces to Dissolve can create duplicate faces 2020-01-23 15:27:58 +01:00

Sybren A. Stüvel commented 2020-01-23 15:30:11 +01:00

Member

Copy Link

Added subscriber: @dr.sybren

Added subscriber: @dr.sybren

Sybren A. Stüvel commented 2020-01-23 15:30:11 +01:00

Member

Copy Link

Updated the task description to simplify it a bit. The issue is still the same, though.

bpy.object.data.validate() indeed fixes the issue, but IMO such a step should be done after the dissolve operator has run.

I tested with Blender 2.65a and there it produces completely wrong geometry. 2.70a already had this duplicate face bug.

I've marked this as a known issue as it's been in Blender for so long, there is a workaround (albeit a oneliner of code), and I don't know when this will be fixed.

Updated the task description to simplify it a bit. The issue is still the same, though. `bpy.object.data.validate()` indeed fixes the issue, but IMO such a step should be done after the dissolve operator has run. I tested with Blender 2.65a and there it produces completely wrong geometry. 2.70a already had this duplicate face bug. I've marked this as a known issue as it's been in Blender for so long, there is a workaround (albeit a oneliner of code), and I don't know when this will be fixed.

Stanislav Blinov commented 2020-01-23 17:03:38 +01:00

Author

Copy Link

Fair enough, I've edited as well to make repro even simpler.

Fair enough, I've edited as well to make repro even simpler.

Germano Cavalcante commented 2022-12-28 14:45:15 +01:00

Member

Copy Link

Added subscribers: @Harry-Kunz, @mano-wii

Added subscribers: @Harry-Kunz, @mano-wii

Nathan Vasil commented 2022-12-29 18:05:51 +01:00

Copy Link

Added subscriber: @vasiln

Added subscriber: @vasiln

Nathan Vasil commented 2022-12-29 18:05:51 +01:00

Copy Link

I would like to make the case that this is not a bug. This is important not just for this particular issue, but as part of a wider philosophy. I am coming here from a discussion at https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/282322/is-having-2-or-more-faces-with-all-shared-vertices-a-bug-or-valid-geometry/282325#282325 , and I'll try and offer a synopsis of my arguments there.

Blender regularly allows users to make "bad" meshes. If the user has a problem with bad meshes, then the solution is for the user to not make bad meshes.

It is expected and unavoidable that 3D tools work in an expected context and have unusual behavior outside those contexts. Automatic weights don't work well on meshes with holes; unwrapping can't figure out how to handle 3 faces connected by a single edge. That's okay.

Additionally, what makes a mesh "bad" is dependent on the context of how that mesh is going to be used. Is that 3-face, 1-edge mesh "bad"? It's not good for a lot of purposes, but it interacts differently with a smooth modifier, and it can be followed up with a mask modifier to make it "good" again. Non-manifold geometry is often "bad" for rendering but useful for other purposes, and I give the examples of physics meshes where I regularly use non-manifold geometry to create the forces that I want.

I do not use doubled faces; the behaviors I mentioned above can be done with loose edges rather than any faces. But there are conceivable situations where a user would need doubled faces to get some technique. After all, they can't have face or corner attributes for use in GN without having faces. They can then "fix" their geometry by deleting the bad stuff when they're done with what they needed those attributes for.

Again, the solution to bad geometry is for the user to not make bad geometry if they don't want it, not to take away the users' power to make it when they want it.

In some cases, we can find that a tool can be improved to work in contexts broader than it was originally intended for. For example, a merge by distance could be made to be more aware of the potential for non-manifold geo and doubled faces. In these cases, it's appropriate to adjust the specific tool (also, appropriate to say, "Then don't use it that way.") But it's part of life that Blender's operations act on expectations, and when they behave strangely in unanticipated contexts, it is not the context that is the bug.

I would like to make the case that this is *not* a bug. This is important not just for this particular issue, but as part of a wider philosophy. I am coming here from a discussion at https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/282322/is-having-2-or-more-faces-with-all-shared-vertices-a-bug-or-valid-geometry/282325#282325 , and I'll try and offer a synopsis of my arguments there. Blender regularly allows users to make "bad" meshes. If the user has a problem with bad meshes, then the solution is for the user to not make bad meshes. It is expected and unavoidable that 3D tools work in an expected context and have unusual behavior outside those contexts. Automatic weights don't work well on meshes with holes; unwrapping can't figure out how to handle 3 faces connected by a single edge. That's okay. Additionally, what makes a mesh "bad" is dependent on the context of how that mesh is going to be used. Is that 3-face, 1-edge mesh "bad"? It's not good for a lot of purposes, but it interacts differently with a smooth modifier, and it can be followed up with a mask modifier to make it "good" again. Non-manifold geometry is often "bad" for rendering but useful for other purposes, and I give the examples of physics meshes where I regularly use non-manifold geometry to create the forces that I want. I do not use doubled faces; the behaviors I mentioned above can be done with loose edges rather than any faces. But there are conceivable situations where a user *would* need doubled faces to get some technique. After all, they can't have face or corner attributes for use in GN without having faces. They can then "fix" their geometry by deleting the bad stuff when they're done with what they needed those attributes for. Again, the solution to bad geometry is for the user to not make bad geometry if they don't want it, not to take away the users' power to make it when they want it. In some cases, we can find that a tool can be improved to work in contexts broader than it was originally intended for. For example, a merge by distance could be made to be more aware of the potential for non-manifold geo and doubled faces. In these cases, it's appropriate to adjust the specific tool (also, appropriate to say, "Then don't use it that way.") But it's part of life that Blender's operations act on expectations, and when they behave strangely in unanticipated contexts, it is not the context that is the bug.

Harry McKenzie commented 2022-12-30 07:51:36 +01:00

Copy Link

the solution to bad geometry is for the user to not make bad geometry if they don't want it > This is an assumption that this type of doubled-face geometry only happens when the user chooses to create it. Unfortunately that is not always the case. This type of bad geometry is not always intentionally created. There is a discussion for example in this thread where the users were confused on what was going on and how they could fix their dilemma. I am sure there are many more of these confusing cases. Fortunately there is a workaround for m in D.meshes: m.validate() but you need to know about it first and it isn't exactly easy to discover the solution. Also if you dissolve just 1 vertex, all the faces merge into 1 face which meant that Blender detected this as bad geometry and fixed it. If the double-faced geometry was desired then Blender should not have merged these faces.

*the solution to bad geometry is for the user to not make bad geometry if they don't want it* > This is an assumption that this type of doubled-face geometry only happens when the user chooses to create it. Unfortunately that is not always the case. This type of bad geometry is not always intentionally created. There is a discussion for example in [this thread](https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/183795/two-faces-inside-of-each-other-sharing-same-4-vertices-why-and-how-to-fix) where the users were confused on what was going on and how they could fix their dilemma. I am sure there are many more of these confusing cases. Fortunately there is a workaround `for m in D.meshes: m.validate()` but you need to know about it first and it isn't exactly easy to discover the solution. Also if you dissolve just 1 vertex, all the faces merge into 1 face which meant that Blender detected this as bad geometry and fixed it. If the double-faced geometry was desired then Blender should not have merged these faces.

Philipp Oeser removed the

Interest

Modeling

label 2023-02-09 15:29:34 +01:00

Philipp Oeser commented 2023-12-15 12:59:06 +01:00

Member

Copy Link

I would also vote for blenders tools/operators to not result in something that mesh.validate() would deny as valid.

Also: this kind of geometry can easily lead to crashes afterwards, as reported in #116217

I would also vote for blenders tools/operators to not result in something that `mesh.validate()` would deny as valid. Also: this kind of geometry can easily lead to crashes afterwards, as reported in #116217

Philipp Oeser referenced this issue 2023-12-15 13:01:11 +01:00

Dissolve Faces can result in invalid geometry (leading to crashes on further modeling operators such as Subdivide Edges) #116217

Philipp Oeser changed title from Dissolve can create duplicate faces to Dissolve can create duplicate faces / invalid geometry (leading to crashes on further modeling operators such as Subdivide Edges) 2023-12-15 13:05:10 +01:00

Campbell Barton self-assigned this 2023-12-15 13:14:36 +01:00

Harry McKenzie commented 2024-01-31 13:24:11 +01:00

Copy Link

I have a model with duplicate edges. 2 vertices shared by 2 edges. So this is apparently also possible with edges, not just faces. I have attached a blend version 4.0 file where you can reproduce it. Just select the object and run the script in the blend file. You will see an orange line appear in object mode. Go into edit mode and delete all the other edges one by one until you are left with the last doubled edge sharing same 2 vertices.

import bpy

def auto_merge_vertices(obj):
    s = bpy.context.scene.tool_settings
    s.use_mesh_automerge = True
    s.use_mesh_automerge_and_split = True
    ops = bpy.ops
    ops.object.mode_set(mode='EDIT')
    ops.mesh.select_all(action='SELECT')
    ops.transform.translate(value=(0, 0, 0))
    ops.mesh.remove_doubles()
    ops.object.mode_set(mode='OBJECT')
    
auto_merge_vertices(bpy.context.object)

I have a model with duplicate edges. 2 vertices shared by 2 edges. So this is apparently also possible with edges, not just faces. I have attached a blend version 4.0 file where you can reproduce it. Just select the object and run the script in the blend file. You will see an orange line appear in object mode. Go into edit mode and delete all the other edges one by one until you are left with the last doubled edge sharing same 2 vertices. ``` import bpy def auto_merge_vertices(obj): s = bpy.context.scene.tool_settings s.use_mesh_automerge = True s.use_mesh_automerge_and_split = True ops = bpy.ops ops.object.mode_set(mode='EDIT') ops.mesh.select_all(action='SELECT') ops.transform.translate(value=(0, 0, 0)) ops.mesh.remove_doubles() ops.object.mode_set(mode='OBJECT') auto_merge_vertices(bpy.context.object) ```

line.gif

24 KiB

double-edge-bug.blend

896 KiB

Germano Cavalcante referenced this issue 2024-04-02 00:41:40 +02:00

Subdividing a plane with overlapping faces created via Grid Fill crashes Blender #120143

Sign in to join this conversation.

No Branch/Tag Specified

Branches Tags

main

brush-assets-project

universal-scene-description

fix-121021

blender-v4.1-release

blender-v3.3-release

blender-v3.6-release

blender-v3.6-temp_wmoss_animrig_public

temp-sculpt-dyntopo

gpencil-next

anim/animation-id-113594

blender-v4.0-release

blender-projects-basics

bridge-curves

sculpt-blender

asset-browser-frontend-split

asset-shelf

tmp-usd-python-mtl

tmp-usd-3.6

blender-v3.5-release

blender-v2.93-release

realtime-clock

sculpt-dev

bevelv2

xr-dev

v4.1.1

v3.6.11

v3.3.18

v4.1.0

v3.3.17

v3.6.10

v3.6.9

v3.3.16

v3.6.8

v3.6.7

v3.3.14

v4.0.2

v4.0.1

v4.0.0

v3.6.5

v3.3.12

v3.6.4

v3.6.3

v3.3.11

v3.6.2

v3.3.10

v3.6.1

v3.3.9

v3.6.0

v3.3.8

v3.3.7

v2.93.18

v3.5.1

v3.3.6

v2.93.17

v3.5.0

v2.93.16

v3.3.5

v3.3.4

v2.93.15

v2.93.14

v3.3.3

v2.93.13

v2.93.12

v3.4.1

v3.3.2

v3.4.0

v3.3.1

v2.93.11

v3.3.0

v3.2.2

v2.93.10

v3.2.1

v3.2.0

v2.83.20

v2.93.9

v3.1.2

v3.1.1

v3.1.0

v2.83.19

v2.93.8

v3.0.1

v2.93.7

v3.0.0

v2.93.6

v2.93.5

v2.83.18

v2.93.4

v2.93.3

v2.83.17

v2.93.2

v2.93.1

v2.83.16

v2.93.0

v2.83.15

v2.83.14

v2.83.13

v2.92.0

v2.83.12

v2.91.2

v2.83.10

v2.91.0

v2.83.9

v2.83.8

v2.83.7

v2.90.1

v2.83.6.1

v2.83.6

v2.90.0

v2.83.5

v2.83.4

v2.83.3

v2.83.2

v2.83.1

v2.83

v2.82a

v2.82

v2.81a

v2.81

v2.80

v2.80-rc3

v2.80-rc2

v2.80-rc1

v2.79b

v2.79a

v2.79

v2.79-rc2

v2.79-rc1

v2.78c

v2.78b

v2.78a

v2.78

v2.78-rc2

v2.78-rc1

v2.77a

v2.77

v2.77-rc2

v2.77-rc1

v2.76b

v2.76a

v2.76

v2.76-rc3

v2.76-rc2

v2.76-rc1

v2.75a

v2.75

v2.75-rc2

v2.75-rc1

v2.74

v2.74-rc4

v2.74-rc3

v2.74-rc2

v2.74-rc1

v2.73a

v2.73

v2.73-rc1

v2.72b

2.72b

v2.72a

v2.72

v2.72-rc1

v2.71

v2.71-rc2

v2.71-rc1

v2.70a

v2.70

v2.70-rc2

v2.70-rc

v2.69

v2.68a

v2.68

v2.67b

v2.67a

v2.67

v2.66a

v2.66

v2.65a

v2.65

v2.64a

v2.64

v2.63a

v2.63

v2.61

v2.60a

v2.60

v2.59

v2.58a

v2.58

v2.57b

v2.57a

v2.57

v2.56a

v2.56

v2.55

v2.54

v2.53

v2.52

v2.51

v2.50

v2.49b

v2.49a

v2.49

v2.48a

v2.48

v2.47

v2.46

v2.45

v2.44

v2.43

v2.42a

v2.42

v2.41

v2.40

v2.37a

v2.37

v2.36

v2.35a

v2.35

v2.34

v2.33a

v2.33

v2.32

v2.31a

v2.31

v2.30

v2.28c

v2.28a

v2.28

v2.27

v2.26

v2.25

Labels

Clear labels   

Interest

Alembic

  

Interest

Animation & Rigging

  

Interest

Asset Browser

  

Interest

Asset Browser Project Overview

  

Interest

Audio

  

Interest

Automated Testing

  

Interest

Blender Asset Bundle

  

Interest

BlendFile

  

Interest

Collada

  

Interest

Compatibility

This issue affects/is about backward or forward compatibility

  

Interest

Compositing

  

Interest

Core

  

Interest

Cycles

  

Interest

Dependency Graph

  

Interest

Development Management

  

Interest

EEVEE

  

Interest

EEVEE & Viewport

  

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

Virtual Reality

  

Interest

Vulkan

  

Interest

Wayland

Issues relating to Wayland windowing support.

  

Interest

Workbench

  

Interest: X11

Issues relating to Xorg/X11 support.

  

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

Issues relating to security: https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/Process/Vulnerability_Reports

  

Module

Animation & Rigging

  

Module

Core

  

Module

Development Management

  

Module

EEVEE & Viewport

  

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

  

Platform

FreeBSD

  

Platform

Linux

  

Platform

macOS

  

Platform

Windows

  

Priority

High

  

Priority

Low

  

Priority

Normal

  

Priority

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 Label

Interest

Alembic

Interest

Animation & Rigging

Interest

Asset Browser

Interest

Asset Browser Project Overview

Interest

Audio

Interest

Automated Testing

Interest

Blender Asset Bundle

Interest

BlendFile

Interest

Collada

Interest

Compatibility

Interest

Compositing

Interest

Core

Interest

Cycles

Interest

Dependency Graph

Interest

Development Management

Interest

EEVEE

Interest

EEVEE & Viewport

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

Virtual Reality

Interest

Vulkan

Interest

Wayland

Interest

Workbench

Interest: X11

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

EEVEE & Viewport

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

Platform

FreeBSD

Platform

Linux

Platform

macOS

Platform

Windows

Priority

High

Priority

Low

Priority

Normal

Priority

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

Milestone

Clear milestone

No items

No Milestone

Projects

Clear projects

No project

Assignees

Clear assignees

No Assignees

Campbell Barton

8 Participants

Notifications

Subscribe

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#70977

No description provided.