Boolean is not working properly with exact faces as 2.92 #89391

New Issue

System Information
Operating system: Windows-10-10.0.19041-SP0 64 Bits
Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.5.0 NVIDIA 466.27

Blender Version
Broken: version: 2.93.1, branch: master, commit date: 2021-06-22 05:57, hash: 1b8d33b18c
Worked: 2.92

Short description of error
I had a file that has a wall with multiple Booleans and it was working very well in the previous version , now it is almost not working , I guess it is a bug related to hole tolerant feature as this wasn't available before

Exact steps for others to reproduce the error
Just opening an file created with 2.92 , Boolean operation doesn't work as intended

Notch.blend
Notch.blend

**System Information** Operating system: Windows-10-10.0.19041-SP0 64 Bits Graphics card: NVIDIA GeForce RTX 3090/PCIe/SSE2 NVIDIA Corporation 4.5.0 NVIDIA 466.27 **Blender Version** Broken: version: 2.93.1, branch: master, commit date: 2021-06-22 05:57, hash: `1b8d33b18c` Worked: 2.92 **Short description of error** I had a file that has a wall with multiple Booleans and it was working very well in the previous version , now it is almost not working , I guess it is a bug related to hole tolerant feature as this wasn't available before **Exact steps for others to reproduce the error** Just opening an file created with 2.92 , Boolean operation doesn't work as intended [Notch.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F10191323/Notch.blend) [Notch.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F10191327/Notch.blend)

Added subscriber: @Basarchitects

#90987 was marked as duplicate of this issue

#90035 was marked as duplicate of this issue

Added subscriber: @chemicalcrux

This may be a duplicate of #89330.

Changed status from 'Needs Triage' to: 'Confirmed'

Added subscribers: @howardt, @iss

@howardt can you check?

It was not fixed by the fix for #89330. I will look into this one now.

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Resolved'

The problem is that the object G_562044 in this file has negative scale factors (on all three axes).
It happens that the object Cube.007 also has all negative scale factors, and therefore the boolean with that object works as the user expects.

However, the object Cube.093 does not have negative scale factors. So when everything is transformed into the local space of G_562044, the boolean with Cube.093 ends up with the normals reversed from what the user intends.

Boolean pays attention to what direction the normals are in to determine "inside" vs "outside" of objects. I think 2.92 may have worked because a different triangulation method was used and it may have not respected the negative scale to reverse normals. It should not have worked, in my opinion.

So I am calling the code working as intended here.

In the sample file, if you apply all transforms to all objects, and then flip the normals of the objects that reversed after doing that (G_56044 and Cube.007) then you get the expected result, I believe.

The problem is that the object G_562044 in this file has negative scale factors (on all three axes). It happens that the object Cube.007 also has all negative scale factors, and therefore the boolean with that object works as the user expects. However, the object Cube.093 does not have negative scale factors. So when everything is transformed into the local space of G_562044, the boolean with Cube.093 ends up with the normals reversed from what the user intends. Boolean pays attention to what direction the normals are in to determine "inside" vs "outside" of objects. I think 2.92 may have worked because a different triangulation method was used and it may have not respected the negative scale to reverse normals. It should not have worked, in my opinion. So I am calling the code working as intended here. In the sample file, if you apply all transforms to all objects, and then flip the normals of the objects that reversed after doing that (G_56044 and Cube.007) then you get the expected result, I believe.

Added subscriber: @Foaly

@howardt
I disagree. The old behavior was both consistent and useful:

When an object is scaled to a negative scale, the outside is kept as the outside (i.e. the normals are automatically flipped). This applies both to viewport display (as seen if the Face Orientation Overlay is activated) and rendering.
It is useful for mirroring linked duplicates (by scaling them with a negative scale. I do this all the time in my workflow.). If the new behavior is kept, there is no longer an easy way to use those.

@howardt I disagree. The old behavior was both consistent and useful: - When an object is scaled to a negative scale, the outside is kept as the outside (i.e. the normals are automatically flipped). This applies both to viewport display (as seen if the *Face Orientation* Overlay is activated) and rendering. - It is useful for mirroring linked duplicates (by scaling them with a negative scale. I do this all the time in my workflow.). If the new behavior is kept, there is no longer an easy way to use those.

Changed status from 'Resolved' to: 'Confirmed'

Looking through the code, handling negative scale is intended to work.
See for example the checks for is_negative_m4(object->obmat) in MOD_boolean.cc.

Raising to high, since this is a recent regression.

Looking through the code, handling negative scale is intended to work. See for example the checks for `is_negative_m4(object->obmat)` in `MOD_boolean.cc`. Raising to high, since this is a recent regression.

Added subscribers: @OwlHuman, @PratikPB2123

This issue was referenced by 0aad8100ae

This issue was referenced by 0aad8100ae5cfb4273cf55e35caf59eaf448f070

Changed status from 'Confirmed' to: 'Resolved'

I will note that while I say this is fixed now, it only works if you check the "hole tolerant" option on Exact.

In #89391#1196206, @howardt wrote:
I will note that while I say this is fixed now, it only works if you check the "hole tolerant" option on Exact.

Thank you for your effort , but I have a questions maybe sounds a bit dumb , why the checkmark is red 🤔?

> In #89391#1196206, @howardt wrote: > I will note that while I say this is fixed now, it only works if you check the "hole tolerant" option on Exact. Thank you for your effort , but I have a questions maybe sounds a bit dumb , why the checkmark is red 🤔?

Just a fault sorry 😞
Re-assigned

Just a fault sorry 😞 Re-assigned

Added subscriber: @restlesscavy

Download

What's New

Blender Studio

Manual

Developers Blog

Documentation

Benchmark

Blender Conference

Development Fund

One-time Donations

Boolean is not working properly with exact faces as 2.92 #89391