text:
Blender mouse function is not working properly?
I used the new mouse actuator and had it used for mouselook. It seems that you would need to turn an amount until the mouselook actually works. My threshold is set to 0, and I am very confused of why this still happens. I would like to have my mouselook start to move as soon as I move my mouse. How can I achieve this?

I noticed the same problem. This only seems to be happening in the Y axis. X axis is smooth. What OS are you on? Could be a bug.

I am currently running blender (64-bit if that helps) on a windows 8.1 operating system.

I submitted a bug report: https://developer.blender.org/T43732

The issue was related to the way that blender get Screen resolutions (returning integers). Due to this, a little threshold had to be setted internally.
Currently, a fix was summitted https://developer.blender.org/rBee58d449455df9470c4a0a902056b8c2001128bf rounding to upper pixel and removing that little intern threshold.
Could you download a dayly build https://builder.blender.org/download/ and check that the issue has been fixed for you?
Note: For a better behaviour, to use a mouse sensor instead of a always sensor

Note2: it's known that with a setup with 2 monitors the mouse look doesn't work correctly. I'm investigating how to fix it.

Nice to see yet another developer around here :) Can't wait to see what the BGE will look like now that it's being actively developed :D

Before I do anything, which piece of code would I use? The one on the right or left?

The code is already committed in the master. To use it you only have to download a dayly build

I also had this problem, and it can be fixed by simply lowering the sensitivity. Note that the reset distance is still smaller than the trigger distance, so this does not fix the problem completely, it only makes almost un-noticable and more bearable.

                     With problem                                                          Improved
The reason this happens is that the game engine, when calculating the mouse's movement, resets the mouse to the center of the screen slightly before it detects the new position.
If you do not move the mouse fast enough, the game engine resets the cursor to the center before it can detect it's movement.

Yes, that helps, but for people like me who have mice with 10000 dpi, we need every bit to work. The dpi is very high as I love to run softwares and have my mouse be able to move every bit, and be, for example, more accurate in an FPS. Also, it would be bothersome to have different sensitivities for x and y, I could make them the same but it would still be inaccurate as the problem still occurs on a much smaller scale, and you would need to move your mouse a lot to look around. Are there maybe any python scripts or something I can use to update the position immediately?

If you are okay with a Python approach: https://github.com/mikepan/BlenderGEResourceKit


text:
Subtract properties?
I have two properties, for time's sake, I'll call them x and y. I want to know what x - y is in another property, lets say z. Is there a way where I can have a property always displaying two properties subtracted from each other? I need this as, in my FPS, when a player reloads, but still has lets say 4 bullets out of 30, I need 4 to be subtracted from 30, so when you reload you get 26. How can I do this (logic bricks are fine if possible)?

Adding an answer

I just found out, but I'll accept it. Also, can you read and reply to my comment about the question relating with my animation not responding quick enough?

Will look at it soon

I used all my daily votes today, So I can't UV you until the day restarts.

@X-27 whats UV? Sounds like unvote. I am rather confused.

@blackhole Don't worry, UV is short for Up-Vote. It is a good thing :) +5 rep when one of your questions gets UV'd, and +10 for answers

It actually is possible to subtract a value of one property from another.
by using this logic setup on your gun, it will subtract from total ammo the amount of ammo needed to fill the current clip. In this case the clip can hold 30

You can see the result here if you enable the debug properties. Press space to use ammo in clip, press R to reload the ammo in clip.

Thanks. Appreciate all the answers you and @Vince Scalia have been giving me. I made so much progress that I could not have made myself in this time. I don't know if you are ready for such a question coming up, I already asked it, but whoever wrote the answer took the bounty money and never replied again. Anyways, thanks!

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Texture showing up in rendered view but pink color in texture view
I have a mountain textured with three different textures by using two mix shaders. I am using Blender 2.80.75. In texture view I can only see a pink color but in render view I see the correct result. Is this a bug or what? Thanks in advance

Blender must have lost the path to your image(s), you need to reload your images in the Image Texture node(s)

@moonboots I already did that, but when I display each texture separately using node wrangler it shows correct result and also in render view mode it displays correct result, the problem occurs only in texture view mode

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Connecting the Endpoints of 2 Tubes while only moving one
Hello Community,
i stumbled upon one very wierd problem on my journey to learn Blender.
I want to connect the ends of 2 tubes accurately together while not needing to move/rotate the red one.

I dont have very much expierience in Blender since im in the process of learning the program.
I tried stuff like closing the red tube with a face, moving the 3D cursor on that face so its centered in the opening. then i tried doing the same on the blue tube and use "snap selection to cursor". That did not work out since either it would deform the blue tube when just selecting the face, or moving the center of mass to the cursor. This also did not rotate the blue tube to align with red.
Edit:
This is what it should look like in the end:

I hope that someone can help me with this. Regards, Nick.

I'm illustrating this with triangular openings, because it's easier to see. We're going to move green to red. All moves in edit mode. Pivot set to '3D Cursor'

Starting with 2 skew open shapes. Snap set to 'Vertex', 'Active'. Create a new Custom Orientation : Ctrl Alt Space from 3 vertices selected on the target opening.

With all vertices of green selected, and a suitable vertex made active, free translate G and snap the active vertex to the corresponding vertex in red. These points will not move any more. Put the 3D cursor there: ShiftS > Cursor to Active

Free rotate green around until it's somewhere in the vicinity. This is only to make things easier to see.

Now we need a view straight across the plane of the opening in red. With 3 verts in the red opening selected, try the orthogonal views of them (ShiftNumpad1,3or7 and the CtrlShift variants) until you reach a view suitable for the next steps. Set snap to 'Edge', 'Active'.

Make a suitable vertex of green active, and rotate all in screen space, snapping the vertex to an edge of red in this view. We now have an edge in the right plane...

...but not aligned to its corresponding edge. So we now rotate all in the Custom orientation we created earlier , RZZ setting snap back to 'Vertex', 'Active'.

Now we have an edge in place. We want to rotate around it. Create a new Custom Orientation from the edge....

...and rotate around it, having made a suitable green vertex active.. (RYY)

...so it can snap to its partner.

Or search on 'Blender Face Align Addon' to find  a tool to do it for you.

YES, thats what i was looking for. I googled about this for hours and couldn't find any answer. Thank you so much Robin.

There are other ways, like the ones illustrated in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gc8BekthXAQ but personally I find this quicker. I'm slamming out custom orienations all the time, so I check the 'Use after creation' and 'Overwrite previous' boxes in the toolbar. The frustrating thing is that, in Blender, you can't create a custom snap orientation  in the same way as you can create a custom transform orientation.

the good thing about your method is that i think it can also work when the 2 parts you need to connect are not perfectly even like in this case image. That will mostly be the case for me because i am mainly playing around with humanoid models. also after looking for the tool you mentioned i found this which seems very strong. mesh align plus

The easiest way is to do it:
If you know the height of the cylinders then:

Go into edit mode
Delete the blue cylinder
Select the edge loop at the opened side of the red cylinder then press F to make a new face
Open the menu Mesh>Extrude>Region (Vertex normals) then enter the numerical value corresponding to the cylinder height
Select the edge loop between the two parts then Mesh>Edges>Edge split
Apply the blue material to the new cylinder

Thanks for your answer. This method is indeed a nice workaround for this example.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Y-Axis is reversed in camera perspective
I'm wondering how I can fix this problem.
When I move an object in camera perspective it moves the opposite direction.
I also reset user preferences to factory default with no success.

Couldn't recreate your problem. Upload your file to blend-exchange.

@Leander File added

Also, if I move the camera using shift + F then the cube will now move correctly.

Are you using Blam, or another camera calibration tool, which has put a setting on the camera not achievable through the UI? Maybe something like a negative focal length?

@RobinBetts I was using Blam but I disabled it and reset user preferences. Still had same results.


text:
Baked Image Texture is Blurry
I've followed quite a few tutorials on how to bake - been over advanced options etc. So I'm pretty familiar.
One issue I'm running into is that the baked image texture is blurry compared to the original image texture.
The original image texture is 6144 x 4756.
I scaled the original image texture in the mapping node to 3.0.
I created a new image in UV editor using the same dimensions.
The result is blurry / not as sharp.
Could this be due to scaling the original image texture?
EDIT:
Things I've tried:

Applying transformations before unwrapping
Creating a higher resolution image in UV editor
Increasing render samples
Changing from Branched Path Tracing to Path Tracing
Unwrapping with correct aspect ratio
Scaling UV's to fit UV editor frame
Plugging the original texture directly into Diffuse node before baking
Flat shading the objects
.png instead of .jpg
Saving baked image with highest quality
Praying

Sharp (Original Texture):

Blurry (After Baking)

Node Setup:

Render / Bake Settings:

Since it's mostly blurry ar the edges, have you tried setting your model to flat shading before baking?

@FrederikSteinmetz I just tried you suggestion and it's still blurry. Also it's blurry everywhere - if you look at the wood cracks you can see a difference.

Did you ever find the solution to this?

@PraxisVisuals Yeah, I switched over to Substance ;)


text:
Cycles - Memory is not being freed
Blender 2.8 Cycles - Memory is not freed after using Z -> "Lookdev" or "Rendered".
It seems like the data is staying in memory, even when switching back to Wireframe mode.
This causes problems when I go to render (F12).
My scene is pretty large (500K verts) and uses about 10GB+ of memory (RAM).
When I go to render, that's another 10GB+ of memory on top of the cached "Lookdev".
I really don't need anything cached. My materials load fast enough where it doesn't really help.
Note: I just closed Blender - which was in wireframe mode, and freed up 16GB of memory.
That's just insane..
When I re-opened the same project, it was only using about 1-2GB.
If caching is there to speed up re-rendering, then why is my memory doubling?
How do I turn off caching?
EDIT: Steps to Reproduce:

Open task manager -> performance tab (To watch RAM usage)
Open a really large scene in Blender. In my case, 500K+ verts and lots of high res textures
Switch to "Lookdev" in viewport. (This should populate your RAM nicely)
Switch back to "Wireframe" in viewport
You should notice that your RAM stays populated and doesn't drop
Bonus Step: If you now switch to "Rendered" in the viewport, even more RAM will start stacking on top of the RAM that was populated during "Lookdev"

I went from ~4.5GB of used RAM up to ~31GB RAM using the above steps.
UPDATE:
I left Blender sitting in the background for 1+ hours and I noticed the RAM usage has slowly been dropping - down about 4GB from where it was. Potential memory leak?

Can't reproduce using the 2.80 release. Does switching from Rendered to another mode and then back to Rendered gradually increase the used memory? If you are certain that the memory doesn't get freed, then create a bug report (Help > Report a bug in Blender).

@rjg If I switch from Lookdev to Wireframe then back to Lookdev, the RAM stays the same. It only increases if you go from Lookdev to Rendered. If you go from Lookdev to Wireframe to Rendered, the new RAM will be added on top of the previous RAM. I added steps to reproduce in my post above.

So can you repeat the steps several times and the memory usage keeps growing or is it reaching its maximum ones you enabled all modes once?

@rjg I'm hesitant to try that - my PC likes to freeze, BSOD, or refuse to sleep after maxing out its RAM. Are you getting similar results in Blender using the steps above? One other thing - If you go from Eevee (Lookdev or Rendered) back to Cycles, the same issue occurs. I mean, I just let my computer sit for the last 30 minutes and no memory has been freed.

I'm not familiar with this part of Blender's code, but it would only be a memory leak (instead of caching) when you can repeat the steps and the memory usage increases every time. You could test this with a simpler scene as well.

@rjg It's not being increased every time, it's just not being cleared when going from one look to another. If I go from Lookdev to Wireframe back to Lookdev, the memory stays the same (as it was in Lookdev). It will only increase if I go from Rendered to Lookdev or vice versa. If I go from one shading mode to another, memory should automatically be freed - or at least have an option to do so.

Doesn't sound like a memory leak then. I can't reproduce the behavior that the max memory used is kept while switching modes though. You could try to write a detailed bug report, perhaps this is a bug or at the very least you'll get to know whether this is intended behavior or not. It's definitely nothing that we can fix on Blender's StackExchange.


text:
Should I avoid triangles when doing retopology?
I'm having an extremely difficult time avoiding triangles when doing retopology. Is it even necessary to do so?
The only way I can see to easily avoid them it have have many more polygons than necessary...
Making a game asset for UE4

Please show an image of your work so we better understand your question.

Although question 43377 is slightly different, my answer 43378 applies just as well here as it does there. The essence: convert one of the vertices of a triangle to a zero length edge. Then, even though it looks like a triangle, it is a quad.

Sorry should have added pic!
And thanks for the answer brasshat, but I'm unable to figure out what you mean. How do I convert an edge to zero length?

If you rip a vertex (v-key), you create two vertices which have the same position. Box- or circle-select both of the vertices, or duplicate the original vertex, and select both the original vertex and the ripped or duplicated one, and create an edge. Because the two vertices have the exact same co-ordinates, the "edge" will have a zero length, but as analyzed by Blender when using loop cuts, &c., those tools which require a quad to work properly will work properly, and it will be a quad, even if it looks like a tri.

In this case you may be fine with tris, because it's a solid model that will not need to deform. But there are many cases when you will need to be able to model something with all-quads or almost-all-quads. Topology is a really extensive topic, so I recommend you start by reading this.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Join multiple objects into 1 object without combining the vertices?
is there a way to combine multiple objects without actually attaching them to each other?
I tried parenting them to a empty axis but I can't switch modes from the parent.
I would have to go through and select each child object to do it. :<

Could you clarify, what the problem with the current "Join" is. (Ctrl J)

I need to have the objects be seperate so they don't warp during rigging. I am using low poly models so combining them makes it look awful. I just want to be able to treat them as 1 object when in object mode.

could you please make a screenshot of your group of objects?

here we go this is what my blender hierarchy looks like. I am trying to rig a 64 model for unity but 64 models aren't one big mesh.

Try using lattice modifier.
To get the modifier to all objects select them with box selection and after this click in any of them, add the lattice modifier and press ctrl-l>modifiers to give all of them the lattice modifier.
here's an example of this:

let me elaborate a bit more. I am making a n64 character from smash bros. I need to some how parent all the pieces to something that will allow me to select them as a whole and go into different modes.

are you sure that what you want isn't join? i mean, i think there is no way to make exatly what you want, or you parent all the items and edit them individually after or you just join them.  you said "I need to have the objects be seperate so they don't ** warp **during rigging." can you give examples? because maybe the problem can easly be fixed with weight correction

I don't think 64 models never actually connected the joints which is what I am trying to rig for unity3d. I don't want it to be one single mesh because I want the parts to move separately with the bones. I also wanted to somehow parent or join them following these rules so that its just 1 mesh or object with multiple parts.  I really am new to this 3d modeling thing and i'm not really sure what I need to do to accomplish this.

you can join them without "connecting" them, just link each part to a single bone before joining the parts


text:
Mesh "expands" in object mode?

As you can see in the above image, my mesh in edit mode, or at least certain parts of it, exist in the size intended for everything to be. But it sort of starts to "expand" and clips through other parts of the mesh in object mode.
Why is this, and how do I fix it?
edit: here is the modifier tab

Could you show your modifer tab or share file?

yes I added it.

unhide all geometry in edit mode. Could be that something was hidden which can only be seen in object mode. Disable the modifier to check whether it is caused by the modifier.

could you please share your file?

Things changing when entering/exiting edit mode are usually due to modifiers. Try disabling them to see if any is affecting your mesh on object mode.
As you have an armature modifier on the stack, I'd guess that some bone is scaled differently from (1,1,1), and that scales its assigned vertices.


text:
Vertices deforming in the wrong way... can't figure it out
I gave my character a belt and I want it to keep it's form when he sits down but it seems like I can't get the belt to not deform regardless of how I paint the weights. I left him in the pose where the deformation of the belt is most noticeable  but if you reset the rotations you'll see what it looks like normally. Can anyone help?

Sometimes you can fix this kind of problems with weight paint, maybe it's possible in your case?
For example I've removed the back of the belt from all vertex groups and parent it to the bone called Spine and it seems to work. It won't give you a big control on it though:

You could have also created a different mesh for this part of your character (which would have made sense as it's a differente object than the shirt or pants).
But if we keep your current mesh and want to keep a precise control, for this kind of cases it may better to create some additional bones that will be the only ones to control the part of the mesh with problems, so here for example you could:

Create 3 additional bones that you parent to the spine:

Call them for example backbelt1, backbelt2 and backbelt3:

Select the back of the belt and remove it from all vertex group so that no bone have anymore influence on it:

Create 3 new vertex groups called backbelt1, backbelt2 and backbelt3 and assign each part of the back of the belt to each group. Now the back of the belt is automatically controlled by a bone:

If you bend the character, move the bones so that the belt is not deformed a way you would not want:


text:
How would I make perfect diagonal edges in a rectangle

In the pic attached I'm trying to make a perfect diagonal edge across the face as I've so beautifully illustrated in MS paint. I've tried subdividing and moving the vertices along the edge so that they look close enough, but 1) they aren't the exact distance and 2) I have to create the vertices on the opposite diagonal side which is a pain.
And I have tried using the ruler/protractor tool but that's been fairly useless so far because 1) it disappears when I go back into edit mode so I can't place my vertices exactly where it was, and 2) you can't enter exact values in it, so when you get down to a measurement like 3.4000005cm you'll never be able to match it on the other side (if that makes sense).
Any suggestions to go bout this? Theres probably some stupid easy solution to it but I've been at this for HOURS and still can't figure it out.

One way to get diagonal based lines like that is to use Offset Edge Slide which will add loopcuts on both sides of the present edge. However one edge is needed, so select opposite vertices and press J to join them with the edge and split the face.
Then select the edge, open Toolshelf (or press Ctrl+Shift+R) and drag the mouse for the effect.

Regarding the edge you create for this tool to work.
You can dissolve it afterwards but note that it creates quite horrible Ngon in the middle which is better to avoid. It all depends on the purpose of the model but it's best to stay away from this geometry to avoid any problems later on.

This was the easiest solution, I hate that I didn't just ask this question earlier and save all those hours of confusion. Thanks for the help.

Personally, I think this is the best answer ... it gives the extra  'Even' option, to equalize the offset down the edges from the corners, if that's the kind of 'perfect' you are looking for.

All in Edit Vertex mode:

Select diagonally opposite vertices, and make a diagonal edge (J)
Bevel (CtrlB) the (already selected) diagonal edge: in the tool region, set Type to say, 'Width', Segments to 2, and Profile to 1.
F Combine the (already selected) two faces on the diagonal band.

This works equally fine as the other answer. Thanks so much.

A possible option is the knife project tool. You can access it in edit mode at the Tool Shelf ‣ Tools ‣ Mesh Tools ‣ Add: Knife Project.

Create a second Plane and scale it to the correct with.
Point it to an edge with the Track To Constraint: Shift the origin of another object to the edge.  RMB select the cutting plane, ⇧ Shift RMB select the other object and press ⎈ CtrlT > Track To.

 RMB select the cutting plane and ⇧ Shift LMB select the plane object. Go to edit mode ↹ Tab, then choose Knife Project.

Thanks for your response, but when I press Ctrl/T and track to, I get this result. I have my plane and cube (rectangle) as separate objects and am in object mode. https://postimg.cc/image/mcilje7cb/

A rectangle (mentioned in the question) is a planar object unlike a cube. Make sure the origin of cube and the plane are on the same threedimensional plane (e.g. XY). Also, read the documentation on the track to constraint

Sorry I read the page, but I'm just not clear on what you mean by make sure they're on the same 3D plane.

I figured it out, I just needed to go to the constraints tab and change it to the Z axis. https://postimg.cc/image/ud1hlpdor/

If what you want is just a diagonal edge you can easily achieve that with the Knife Tool:
1) Initial setup:
first go to edit mode in vertex select like the picture below and press K; you'll notice your mouse cursor has changed shape and is now a little knife

2) Use the Knife Tool:
after pressing K position your cursor in one of the vertex you want the diagonal edge, you'll notice a green dot appears when the cursor snaps to one vertex, now Left Click and drag to the opposite vertex (you'll see a red dot in here when the cursor snaps to this vertex), you'll notice a purple line is being created, then Left Click again on the opposite vertex and press Enter and now you have a diagonal edge (like image number 3)

3) Final result and tips:

if you press C while the Knife tool is selected you can cut your mesh following a 45 degrees increment, very useful in Ortho Front, Top ,Side views since it allows you to cut along the axis
if you press E you can start a new cut without confirming the previous one, very useful if you have multiple cuts and you want to cut everything first and confirming later (doing one cut and confirm and then doing another cut and confirming and so on is very time consuming)
if at any point you don't like your cut and don't want to confirm it simply press Esc or Right Click

What I am trying to do is get 2 diagonal edges along the horizontal and vertical edges like in the image posted, I am not trying to connect the vertices

yeah I figure that out later, try with knife project tool as the other user said :)


text:
Is there a way to create a loc/rot/scale shortcut in the context menu?
This was a feature I got really used to in 3DS Max and I'm wondering if theres a way to create the same shortcut in the context menu instead of hitting the keyboard or mousing to the left of the screen when I want to change it. It was so convenient having it wherever I was at on the screen.

Unless they change the method implemented in context menu, AFAIK there isn't and shouldn't have that method to include custom shortcut in arbitrary context menu without hard coding source code. If you think this feature should be in Blender out-of-the-box, then a feature request will be a good way to go.

Is there a particular reason you can't use a keyboard shortcut?  One blender's biggest, if not the biggest strength, is how powerful and smooth its hotkey system is.  G, R, and S are all there directly under the fingers of the hand you'd otherwise not be using - that's more presence than something behind a context menu.

Addon update
The original tool set in the left hand side 3D view is extremely complicated so I would rather use a naïve method to add operator in both edit and object mode with following tool:

Tweak

Select Box

3D Cursor

Move

Rotate

Scale

Transform

The icon is not the one in tool shelf, that's a new stuff and I can't find a easy way to get those icon value. So I use some similar icon instead.
Indeed pretty handy after using it awhile, should be a useful feature in normal workflow.
...
def menu_func(self, context):
    layout = self.layout
    layout.label(text="Set Tool")
    for key, content in __toolset_list.items():
        if content:
            layout.operator(
                "WM_OT_tool_set_by_id",
                **content
            ).name = key
        else:
            layout.separator()
    layout.separator()
...

I put it in context_menu_toolset.py - GitHub so just go download it and run or install the script. If the addon didn't show up after installment, it should be in Test tab rather then Official or Community.
Non addon method
In Blender 2.83, use space bar can call out the operation panel if you set your space bar function to tools:

You can change your preference here:

You can also assign them directly into quick panel:

Then use Q to call out quick menu:

And you, still, can assign a short cut to the quick menu item:

Finally, you can directly assign the additional short cut in preference.


text:
Is making quads necessary when Intersecting objects?
I have always been a fanatic about making sure everything is made of quads but I am doing some archvis where the camera moves around the room (but objects remain stationary) and started wondering if I'm killing myself going through the trouble of cutting quads on objects that intersect that aren't going to be changing shape. A good example would be a window casing where the vertical and horizontal parts come together. I want to join the trim into a single object so I can library it and don't see why I would really need to go through the trouble of building quads out of every face that touch. I ran a simple render (animating with EEVEE) and didn't see any issues with shadows or faces warping.
Close up of full unit
[

There isn't really a reason to have the objects be a single mesh to my knowledge. You want a single mesh when you are making stuff for 3D printing for example, bc it reduces the possible issues and overall geometry. Or if you want to give the impression that the whole thing as been covered in thick paint and you need a smooth connection.  But otherwise, for a normal render, if it already looks good like that you don't have to merge them. To begin with, in a real window, those would be separate parts

Yes, in a real window they would be separate parts but even if parented, you can't mark them as a single asset to pull out of a library later for another project, I have to join the parts as a single object, then mark as asset. The vertical sides come down and touch the window stool, an apron would be below that touching the bottom of the stool. I would have to cut a good number of loop cuts and cuts to make every intersection be only quads yet, if I'm not doing any flexing of the parts when the camera moves, I'm wondering if cutting all of those quads is even going to matter.

Why should quads be necessary ? Especially if you don't use modifiers such as Bevel, Subdiv Surface, ... You can have tris, quads, or n-gons. About multiple objects as assets : https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/245019/how-to-mark-as-one-asset-an-object-with-separated-parts

That's exactly what I was wondering. On a character I have to contend with a lot of flexing of curved faces so I keep everything quads, all these archvis parts are in straight lines and don't need to bend or flex in an animation.

@Cornivius yes, they would be separate parts, but if you painted it after being assembled, the paint would connect the surfaces. Path11, what Cornivius really meant by not merging is that you can have separate "hulls" (mesh islands, selected separately with "L" key) within one object. If you sell this as an asset, clients may appreciate quad topology, because some of them will want to deform or bevel the window. So as usual: it depends. When it comes to bevel, subdivision, you only really need 1 or 2 buffer loops of quads between flat surfaces.

I like everything quads too but, in this case, I have no intent on selling the asset, just use in my own production (I am creating a remodel web series). I would normally be all about making it quads, this is the first time I have ever considered not making everything quads but, I'm also considering not processing unnecessary quads to keep rendering quicker for animation. I could easily double the number of faces on the object by adding all the loops and cuts to make quads but, I have to consider that I would then be multiplying it times every window. I'm wondering if that would be necessary.

If you're fine with the shading as it is, then don't bother and move on. :)

No, it is not.
If you don't have a reason to do something you should not do it. If you are modelling objects that are separate objects in real world there is absolutely no need to join them or connect their topology. Actually it would be more realistic to keep them separate as there are often small gaps between them that might be still visible from further away. They might collect dust or dirt or simply have a shadow and be visible as lines. So this is not only a complete waste of time, but also has a negative effect on the realism of your models. It's not even unnecessary, you should actually not do it.

There is a reason, see added pics. I'm rendering with EEVEE, the projects are for entertainment/education web series incorporating video and animation. They will show destruction/reconstruction of homes and don't need photo realism, I have video for that. Grouping as one unit lets me change size by editing X-ray, grouping vertical or horizontal verts for resizing, which avoids the distortion of scaling. When there 20-40 windows in a building that need to be created, five parts being moved and resized is time consuming. They don't change size during animation, wondering if it will blow up.

One other thing, just in case I need it, I took the top three casing parts joined, the window stool, and the apron and made them vertex groups then grouped the entire thing as a single object. I did that in case I wanted to change the molding type for any of those by selecting the vertex group and deleting, then adding the new molding and grouping again. Speed is the critical part, if this takes off like I am having indications of, I need to roll out animations and/or getting other archvis artists to do sections. Providing assets like a window moulding grouped to them helps their process

You don't need 5 objects per window. They can be parented or you can join multiple meshes to one object.

I don't see how model's topology or number of mesh islands can affect animation functionality, unless you want to do soft deformations...

To the second comment - hit L while hovering over some topology to quickly select linked.

Martynas Žiemys - That's what I was thinking too, they aren't deforming so why am I killing myself cutting quads all over it? Having only dealt with quads (I've been a nut for them), i was wondering if there were any hidden issues before I spent a day laying in the new window trims. So far, seems nobody finds issue. The problem with parenting is, you can't library the group, Blender will only library one of the objects so, I think I got around that by creating vertex groups within the object. As I get busy, I'd like to pass off assets to other artists I can hire to help with new projects.

There are no issues with n-gons if there are no issues with n-gons. You avoid them because they sometimes have issues, if they don't they don't, that's fine. Everybody uses n-gons sometimes... But I have no idea, why you want to connect the topology at all if they are separate parts in reality. That makes no sense to me. I mean are you sure you have a good reason to connect them? You sure there is no proper way to do what you want? I cannot imagine a situation where separate parts of a mesh would become a problem in non deforming objects especially if they are separate in reality..

This seems like an XY problem. You might have a chance to save yourself some headache if you shared the wider context of what you are trying to do in detail. Maybe the higher lever goal is achieved some other way than what you are trying to do.

Sure, very good reason. You have thirty windows, several sizes, you can copy the group of five parts to a new window then, you have to resize each parts length and connect them. With a single group, I can move the object to the new window, block the horizontal and vertical vertices like shown, resize width and height in two moves then on to the next window. You're there all day moving and sizing five parts. Now, when I get busier, I need other artists and want to make their workflow smooth.

No that doesn't work like that. You can do the same with whatever object you want. Ask another question about that maybe. Yuo can use hook modifiers (ctrl+H with verts selected) amd then duplicate linked the same object also saving memory.

It works fine, while we were conversing I laid in 43 window and door casings, different sizes, all with the same casing (one door one window), two quick vert adjustments to size  each, and no modifiers. look at the pics again, real simple to adjust.

Here have a look. A bit more complex setup, but if you have loads of them that might be easier: https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/320582/how-duplicate-a-lot-of-windows-all-in-different-sizes-when-the-frames-are-the-sa/320583#320583

That's another way but, I think you're getting wrapped up in an older way. My windows are separate from my trim and can be resized the same way quickly BUT, the problem both of our methods have is the horizontal mullions don't adjust automatically, they have to be parametric to do that. Notice when you change your window height the cross mullion doesn't adjust, same with mine and we would both have to manually adjust everything. So, Geometry Nodes can do that. I haven't dug deep into GeoNodes but I will because there is one place that would REALLy come in handy, and that is cabinet doors.

It's easy to hook it to the top empty and adjust the strength of it by any amount you want, so it moves in any way "automatically". In any case, no topology needs to be connected if it's not connected in real life. I don't see why it would need to be even in the case you describe. Not sure I am getting what this all about at all.


text:
Alpha channel in coloramp shader node
I've been wrestling with the Coloramp converter node while creating a separate shader. I'm using this shader to create procedural freckles that can allow me to adjust size, position, shape and color of the freckles so I can reuse it in a variety of characters/creatures (or more). The problem is, I need one of the colors to be an Alpha channel, just clear. The shader is applied to a vertex group that lets me control placement. The shader block feeds into the mix of the rest of the skin but I have blocked it out separate to make it easier to get to find and adjust for the situation:
When I originally set it up, it laid it down great and let me make any adjustments, the problem was, the second color was white and showed on the vertex painted area. I tried everything I could think of to change the white to an alpha but had wacked results. So, I changed the second color to match the blush on the cheeks, which works pretty well in this one case but is not a solution, there will be times, and characters, where that would not work well. Here's the coloramp second color white, and another blush:
It would be great to have that as a separate shader that can be saved to the library but, I need that alpha channel on it in these cases. Any suggestions?
Tip-o-the-Hat to Christopher Bennet, pointed me in the right direction and kicked my brain onto the right path. Here's how it ended

If you want just the "freckles", use a B&W ColorRamp, and use that as a mix factor between your freckle color (can be any shader, I used Diffuse BSDF in the example), and a Transparent shader. Don't forget to change the Blend Mode to something other than Opaque if you're using EEVEE (Right side):

If you want overlay the "freckles" over any other color or image (before a shader/BSDF), use a Mix Color node and use the ColorRamp as a mix factor between your base color (or image), and the freckle color:

Ah! That works great! Thanks. I wanted to keep it procedural with the mapping nodes  because I can easily slide the field in any direction if I don't like the layout, or adjust the size to be blemishes/marks on a creature or animal. And yes, I'm using EEVEE.

Hmmm, no, ran into an issue, looks good the way you have it but, mine feeds back into the mixers above that are carrying the rest of the skin colors. Each has an input Attribute node that specifies the appropriate vertex group lips, eye rim, etc). the string you have ends in BSDF's and I can't get the Attribute input specifying the Freckle vertex group plugged into this. I'll work on it.

If you just want to overlay the "Freckles" over another color (or image), you can use the ColorRamp as a fix factor for a Color Mix node between your freckle color and whatever other color/image you're using, then feed that either directly into the output (unshaded), or use the color mix as the BaseColor for any BSDF. I'll update my answer with an example.

I figured it out. at the end of your string, above the Mix Shader, I set the Attribute input above the Mix Shader, ran you r mix Shader into another Mix Shader with the Attribute of the Vertex Group as the factor and your shader and the main BSDF Shader I had as the two shaders in the last mix, then out to the Material Output. Thanks for getting me on the right path, I hadn't used mixed shaders that much and it was off to the side of my thinking...your tip opened my mind up.

Hey, whatever works. Glad I could at least help point out the door, even if you're the one who walked through it ;)

If you leave the mapping nodes in, you can later shift the dot field around easily if you don't like where some of the varying sizes are falling, a little more control if you want to make varying patterns on other surfaces.


text:
Why does my Eevee camera view look different to the render?
I am new"ish" to blender and I am trying to work out why the camera view looks so different to the actual render. I want to render to look like the camera view. This is the render. You can see the clouds are pushed down and look and cover the moon. I want my render to look like the camera view in the first image.

1: https://i.sstatic.net/xICJE.jpg

BTW the reason one was shifted from  the other was that their (identical) materials were being mapped in the Generated space of their respective objects.  Collider is a combo of dome and moon, Sphere isn't. They have different bounding boxes, which are the XYZ 0-1 bases of their Generated texture spaces.

You have two objects in your scene with the clouds texture, "COLLIDER" and "Sphere". The second is the one that shows the moon, the first one is obscuring the moon:

The reason it doesn't show up in the "3D Viewport" is that you set the Viewport Display in the  Object Properties to Display As > Wire, this way it will not show the texture in the viewport. Switch it to Textured.

You're amazing thank you so much!!!

You're welcome. If it helped you, you might consider accepting the answer: What should I do when someone answers my question?


text:
Is there a way to sculpt without affecting edge length?
Essentially I want to be able to 'grab' without stretching as the Grab brush does.
For example, when I use the grab brush to move the mesh, it lengthens the edges. I want to keep them the same, just moving the vertices.

i don't know how to say it, but just think about this: imagine you have two vertices, one edge in between. The only way to move one vertex without changing the length of the edge is moving that vertex along a sphere around the other vertex. And this is true for all (!) edges and their corresponding vertices if they should move as you want. So sorry but mathematics has a problem with your kind of prerequisition and i am sure this is not the kind of deformation you want. And furthermore i would say: sculpting without changing edge length makes less sense.

but maybe you just want to rotate some piece of mesh, where all vertices are in one line and you want to rotate around that line, then it would be possible.

For example, how would I form a half-circle with the mesh I have here without extending any edges. Maybe that makes more sense?


text:
How to mirror a circle curve
I want the points of the left half of the circle to copy the coordinates from the right.
My setup: I reflect the curve and transfer its position to the left half.

But since I transfer the nearest points position this works only in a certain radius.

So I need to use indexes, but I don't understand how to do it correctly.
EDIT
I want my circle to have a constant number of sides, and to have its center at the world origin.
For example, let's create a circle with 10 sides. If I remove half of it and then mirror the other half, I get the following result. Now I need to connect points 2 and 7, 8 and 3 with edges.

Desired result.

Would you be okay with a solution that doesn't use indexes (similarly to ugorek's answer), or would you like to stick to indexes only?

@Invizio Well, it seems like a logical solution to me. I've just created a node setup with indexes (the last gif is an example) but it doesn't always work well.

Just to confirm: your original geometry is a half-circle, you'd like to mirror it on some axis at the origin, but the points do not necessarily touch the origin, and you'd like the two corresponding pairs of endpoints to be connected by an edge?

Join Geometry with a scale of $-1$ on one of the axes.

I thought about this solution first and it doesn't suit me. I should have mentioned this, sorry. My curve is a circle that can be rotated such that its center points are not on the y-axis. And if I delete half of the circle, I will have to somehow connect these points.

Here's my node setup:

Similarly to ugorek's answer, it 's basically a matter of keeping only a single half and scaling by -1 on one axis. But you said that:

You'd like the endpoints of each half to be merged with the corresponding point of the other half.
Your curve is not necessarily in the middle of the object, and

The former is the easiest to fix: simply use a Merge by Distance node, and make sure to convert your curve to a mesh for it to work. If you are already working with a mesh, you can omit the Curve to Mesh node. (The rest of the nodes will work fine).
For the latter, we can fix this by offsetting the mirrored half by twice the distance from the center of the original curve. You can pick this value manually if it's convenient for you, but if not (or if it might change often), you can use an Attribute Statistic node to find which point of the curve is closest to the middle, and mirror based on that.
Note: This requires you to work on the "correct" side of the axis. If it appears wrong, you can try switching from Min to Max on the Attribute Statistic node.

Please let me know if you'd like me to develop my answer further.

I unintentionally misled you. I'll edit and expand my question.


text:
How do i render this water correctly?
Im quite new to Blender, i was following a tutorial on how to make a water surface, and although it looks great in the shading and in the layout tab when i render the animation it looks really dark and opaque, as if the material or the shading wasnt working at all.
Im sure its something quite simple, but itd be great if someone could lend me a hand. Thanks!

once rendered it looks like this

Here's the file

Hello and welcome, did you add an HDRI to your world to have reflection and light?

https://youtu.be/JM-Z4F3WtmI?t=80

You need an HDRI image, otherwise your surface has nothing to reflect. In Material Preview mode you'll have a default HDRI, that's why you see a reflection.
Go into the Shader Editor, switch to World, activate the Node Wrangler addon, select the Background node, press ShiftT to create a node chain with an Environment node, and load an HDRI:

Thanks! That was it!


text:
Looping rain on window effect
I want to create a rain on window effect for an animated wallpaper. For this reason it needs to loop.
I am going for something like this:

In the end, it doesn't need to be exactly the same but I would like to have static raindrops and ones running down.
As far as rain on window goes there are some tutorials that use shaders and some that use particles.
My question is how I can make either of those loops?

Your question is pretty general. Could you add some screenshots of references that look like what you are going for? there are unlimited ways to create "rain on a window" and multiple ways to make them loop.

I am going for something like this
In the end it doesn't need to be exactly the same but I would like to have static raindrops and ones running down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XJHc5xUFoM&ab_channel=CrossMindStudio and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0koL5NGBaA0&t=109s&ab_channel=TopChannel1on1 might help you get started

My question is less about how to do it and more about how to make it loop.

If using a shader..
If your animation can stand being mixed over itself without losing realism, you can split it into identical A and B rolls, of loop length.
'B's jump is over the beginning and end of the loop. 'A' is time-shifted by half the loop length, so its jump is in the middle of the loop, and it's continuous over the beginning and end.
Then you cross-fade the rolls in such a way that 100% A covers the jump in B, and vice versa.
This can be done with a node group:

The yellowish nodes are the A roll, the Modulo means every time it reaches  'Period', it starts again from 0. The addition of 'Period/2' means it starts from halfway along.
The Ping-Pong does the cross-fade. It's arranged so the outputs can be connected to a mix, of some kind, between colors, or parameters. or shaders. and the cuts will be covered.
To use this with Amin Missaoui's lovely node-group, you have to tweak his group slightly, and bring the internal #frame driver out to the interface, so you can use the group twice, offset, for A and B:

It doesn't work too badly. But of course, you could use the same principle in any animated procedural shader of your own. You may not be mixing duplicate shaders.. it could just be colors, or UV's,  normals, or whatever works.
A 50-frame loop:


text:
Attaching multiple rigged objects to the body
Project I need help with (DeviantArt download)

Modeling the "paperwork" in Blender from the concept art:

(My period key doesn't work so please forgive the run-on sentences)
Hi there! I've always hated rigging because it can get incredibly confusing, but that's why I'm still working on it! However, I've come across an issue where my character's clothing armature (along with tail and ears) won't move around with the rest of the body, even though I have the body armature parented to them.
I've even tried using the 'child of' constraint, but when I go into pose mode, it doesn't work.
I would like to point out that the armatures are all completely separate armatures and the meshes are all separate too that I'm trying to parent to the body so they move around together. Separately they work just fine! (Save for some weight paint troubles with the cape-)
Edit: Still not fixed but I've realized I still have so much to fix in terms of weight painting...

Hello and welcome. I've just checked your blend file. There are only several planes in it and the "concept/reference/texture" image. Is Truffle delivered in parts and do we have to assemble it ourselves? ;-)  Seriously, is this the correct blend file? There is no armature.

I've given it a try and puzzled this rouge cat together. Although, I have no idea how the cape+hood should work. But I wonder why do you need multiple armatures? Do you want to animate some foldings, too?

Hi! I only have one blend file for this lil man but I can try again in case I forgot to save before sending out this! Make sure that things aren't hidden, as there are 3 collections, one for a base spread, one with the colored image, and then one with the built together version. I used multiple armatures to make it easier to put things together. If there's a way to join everything together without ruining the weight paint I'd love to know! (I'm very sorry about you putting him together- I know quite a bit bout modeling but this still took quite a while to put together myself woops)

(The main file was updated! Hopefully that'll fix the missing armature!)

Oh, you posted 2 comments, I missed the first one... so, I've just double-checked the downloaded blend file and added a screenshot of it to your question. But I have to say sorry, there is only one collection. The greyscale reference is new. That was missing yesterday. I've used the colored image to create my own version: https://pasteall.org/pic/de77678f276d474ba0a17451fff3e29e but I still have no idea how you made that cape or how and why you create the armatures. Could you upload it again?

You did a great job piecing the parts together! For a lot of what I did I created edge loops to make curved parts, for the cape what I did was mirror one piece and then scrap half of the smaller piece to make a triangle that I fitted to the back of the cape woops. I'm about to update the deviantart thing again, I saved it as a completely different .blend this time- crossing fingers!

Your last upload worked. I got him up and running and will post an answer later. Here is a teaser ;-) https://imgur.com/a/nyNPbeR

He looks so goofy in the most charming way! Thank you so much and I look forward for the answer to my problem! Thank you so much for your help!

@Blunder Hey there! I don't intend to rush you or anything, just a friendly reminder in case you forgot! (Please take your time, again I just want to remind you that I'm still here!)

Hi! Thanks for the friendly reminder. I'm glad you're still here :-) I've written it down but it took longer than I thought. There was still an issue with the parent relationship. It's fixed now, except for the root bone of the model. I'll need to examine this closer. I think there is something wrong with the IK. It causes flickering/jumping while the animation runs. Weird. Just in case you get lost or I forgot something I've uploaded the blend file and attached it to the answer. It's the previous version that doesn't have the root bone and no glitches. Have fun. Truffle is a cool cat :D

Ok, it's a bad idea to make the IK bones a child of the root bone. This causes the flickering. (I still wonder why this works with the cape?) A question to you: Why are the foot bones children of the LegIK bones but not of the Leg bones? (see screenshot 3 of in the answer). And why is the Chain Length of the IK constraint 2 for the legs but 0 for the arms? I'm not an IK expert but shouldn't they be the same?

You did a great job with the separate rigs. All you need to do is to merge them, with exception of the cape and the knife. Then fix the weights, and give the knife a Child Of constraint so Truffle can pick it up.
Body Rig
Armature objects can be joined like mesh objects with Ctrl+J. Then you can parent the bones to get the bone mechanics working.

in Object mode, select the tail and the body armature. Make the body armature the parent by selecting it last (=active object). Then join them Ctrl+J.
switch to Edit mode, select the very first tail bone, then the body bone, and parent them Ctrl+P, with Keep Offset (note: Connected would pin it to the neck)
attaching the tail
do the same with both ears and the head bone:
attaching the ears
consider adding a root bone for the body rig and parent all deformation bones to it (but not the IK bones which cause flickering during animation). This allows you to move around the character in Pose mode without the IK effect. If you (ab)use the body bone as root bone and move the character then it looks like he is being dragged away. The arms and legs try to stay in place and are dragged behind the body if the distance gets bigger.
don't forget to uncheck the [_] Deform checkbox for the root bone!
The final bone hierarchy looks like this:

check the ears, belt, and potions. They need to be parented to the Body Rig. This can be done With Empty Group and you can create and assign the vertices of the mesh to the specific bone groups. Ears need to be assigned to the Head vertex group, belt, and potions to the Body group. Create the group if it's not present. Check if all items have the Armature modifier on the stack.

Cape Rig
My first idea was to merge the cape, too. But on second thought it might be better to keep it separated. This makes it possible to take off the cape or give it to another character.

in Edit mode, add a root bone to the cape

decrease the IK Chain Length from 4 to 3

then make the root a parent for the IK bones and the 4 deformation bones:

the root bone is a deformation bone, you might want to add more deformation bones to control the front of the hood and the sides of the hood because the back of the head can stick through the hood sometimes.

to connect the cape with the character you need to add a Bone Contraint in Pose mode to the cape's root bone, with the body bone of the body rig as a target. Make sure it's a Bone Contraint, not the Object Contraint. You can keyframe the Influence to 0 to simulate a take off the cape.

to make the cape armature move with the body armature in Object mode it must be a child of the body armature like you did. Disclaimer: I am not sure if this is 100% correct in relation to the Bone Contraint: Armature.

Weight Paint
You've done already the arms and legs. You just need to assign the body and head to their bones. In Edit mode is the Vertex Group Weights overlay. If you enable it you can see the weight paint.

use the Assign and Remove buttons to assign in Edit mode the head to the head vertex group and remove it from all other groups.

do the same for the body and the ears.

for the cape use Parent, With Automatic Weights and then assign the hood to the Cape Root bone:

check if the Armature modifier of these objects is present

make sure they are parented to the armature (Object Properties > Relationship)

Picking Up the Knife
if you want to make the character interact with other objects like the knife make it an independent object.

clear the parent
remove the armature modifier if it's still there
add an Object Contraint of type Child Of, set it to body rig & the Hand.R bone, and press the Set Inverse. With the Influence you can attach/detach it.

That's it. Happy animating!
Blend file: https://pasteall.org/blend/df35aa1718e44e6b8f79e00d84619120
(I've forgotten to add the root bone for the body rig in the example file).

Wow thank you so much! You went above and beyond with this! (I tried just following along with the directions you gave before downloading the blend you gave me!) A few things I will say are you didn't explain everything you did, (Unless I missed something in which I apologize) Never got to hear about adding armature mods to the ears and appendages, it worked out for the feet and arms but the ears wouldn't move with the head unless I was directly moving the head (As in wouldn't move with the body or root being the things I was moving around) And the belt wasn't moving at all! (1)

It was just a bit frustrating when I thought I had all the info (Which is why I'm so happy you gave the blend file for it! Another thing I want to point out is in the directions you gave, you said that parenting is ctrl+J when it's actually ctrl+P, luckily I knew what you meant though woops!
Again you did an amazing job and I'm so incredibly thankful for your help! People like you make it so much easier to deal with the parts of modelling that aren't as enjoyable! (2)

Oh sorry for the mistake and the omitted info. Yes, you need to parent the belt and potions to the armature (With Empty Groups) and then assign all verts to the body vertex group. Same for the ears and the head vertex group. Usually, I do the fixes and write them down at the same time. But this time it was a longer answer than I thought it would be. I've uploaded the file because I was already afraid that I had missed some information.  Glad you got it right and it helped you  :)


text:
Why when I click left the editor type is opening?
I'm a newbie on Blender, this is my first really doing something on it. I don't really know how but I changed the interface in a way that I didn't want to and tried to change it like it was at the origin but it didn't work.
Suddenly when I click left a window popped, it was the editor type. I don't know how I change it but I can't change it back to was it was before. I can only type Shift + left click and drag so it will select (like if we only left click before).
I try to reinstall Blender but that didn't change anything...

ps: I'm not English so maybe it's something really easy to resolve but I really don't know how to handle this.

Could you please include a screenshot of your Blender?

sure ! don't know if this helpful but this is what i get when i left click (and will change the view whenever i do that...)

To get Blenders UI and all settings back to how they were when you first opened Blender, go to the:    File menu > Defaults > Load factory Settings > and then you will see a little pop_up asking you to,    "OK, Restore factory Settings"    which you will need to click on to validate this operation.

Thank you so much !!!

Your welcome :) I would guess that everyone who has ever tried learning Blender has needed at some time or other to "Restore Factory Settings" lol.


text:
Trebuchet Rigid Body
Greetings dear 3D artists!
According to a tutorial on "Wintermute Digital" YouTube channel called "Blender 2.8 Physics Tutorial - Make a Working Trebuchet!" I created a trebuchet model.
All parts rotate normally. The "Collision" modifier is assigned to the base platform. A similar modifier is assigned to the main throwing beam (11 Beam #10).
The rope has the physical properties "Cloth". In this case, the rope behaves differently with the Collision objects. It carefully bends around the base platform and but it does not notice the throwing beam, it just passes through it. Why does this happen? Perhaps due to the fact that the rope is included in the throwing beam (Ctrl-P) to connect these objects? Or is it for another reason?
The author stops there. And it would be interesting for me to go further. To teach the trebuchet to throw stones. Is this possible in this situation? As far as I understand, it is necessary to redo the structure of the rope and assign the Collision modifier to the stone.
If you have experience in this matter, please share. Blender version 2.93.

maybe you share your file so we can check it out?

I am attaching this file for analysis. img src="https://blend-exchange.com/embedImage.png?bid=2XX80zkz" /

You should apply the Scale and Rotation to all objects (Ctrl+A in Object mode). It's important for the physics simulation and maybe lower the mass. The weight is 1500kg heavy. But even with these changes, the collision modifier of the beam is still ignored (or doesn't work properly). Increasing the collision quality doesn't help. I don't know why.

At high animation speeds, this may not be noticeable. In my opinion, the author of the tutorial has the same situation. Maybe this is a flaw in the program. I will still try to remodel the rope for throwing stones. This is more important to me.

Just a quick test here. The collision of the rigid body seems not to move with the object. Usually, you just need to swap the modifiers on the stack but in this case, there is no "rigid body" modifier on the stack: https://i.sstatic.net/4WhL7.gif

May try another way of fixing the rope and beam. Because initially their meshes overlap. And this leads to errors.

what i am always wondering is....if i increase the "so called" quality step of the cloth sim...in 90% of all cases, the simulation goes crazy and worse than on lower values....feels a bit buggy for me

I have little experience with physics modeling. Studied MantaFlow a little, made Soft Body jelly cubes a little. This is my first time doing physics Cloth. Therefore, I ask questions.

For the first problem that the cloth ignores the collision of the rigid body, there are several bug reports. The problem is that modifiers like collision and particles don't follow the rigid body's movement. A fix is mentioned here in a comment: https://developer.blender.org/T78859 => Set Rigid Body > Collisions > Source to Base. Then the cloth no longer passes the beam. This works also for particles on the rigid body.

Yes. It works. It will be better this way. Thanks!

First, apply the Scale and Rotation to all objects (Ctrl+A in Object mode). It's important for the physics simulation. Applying the Location is also a good idea for rigid body simulations. Except here for the weight object which goes crazy if you do so. Applying the Location sets the object's origin to the world origin. For the weight object, it's better to set the origin to the center of mass (menu: Object > Set Origin > Set Origin to Center of Mass (Volume)).
Then maybe lower the mass of the weight object a bit. It's too heavy for the size. Your trebuchet is a mini version, about 1 meter tall :-)
Cloth + Rigid Body Collision
With the default settings, the Collision and Particle modifiers of a Rigid Body body doesn't follow the movement of the rigid object. In consequence, the Cloth object collides with the rigid body where it was at the start of the simulation:

To fix this you need to set Rigid Body > Collisions > Source to Base. Then the collision follows the rigid body and the collision works as expected. In the example above, the rope (cloth) no longer passes the beam (rigid body). This works also for particles on the rigid body. (Related solved bug: T78859)
Firing a Stone
Attaching the Stone
The stone (just a simple mesh) can be attached to the rope (cloth) with a Vertex Parent relationship. Select exactly 1 or 3 vertices of the cloth in Edit mode and the stone object. Then parent them with the menu entry: Vertex > Make Vertex Parent.

Detaching the Stone
This is more difficult because you can't keyframe the parent relationship and remove it. But you can do a magician trick and fake it.
Just duplicate the stone, and place it where it will be detached. Keyframe the visibility of the first and the second stone. (Object Properties > Visibility > Show In > [X] Renders and [X] Viewports) The first stone is visible from frame 1 to 33 and the second stone is hidden and visible at frame 33.
In this example, the stones are visible so you see them both at the same time until frame 33:

The second stone can be a Rigid Body and be animated while it is hidden to gain momentum. Rigid Body > Settings > [X] Animated must be checked to keyframe its location else it will fall down. In the example above, the location was just keyframed, with no rigid body physics.

Well done‼‼‼‼‼

Thank you very much for your help!

authors: Геннадий Горбач


text:
Trying to find a user's manual for Blender 2.69
Is there a downloadable manual available for blender version 2.69? All searches I've tried do not yield a result for version 2.69.

According to the Blender Index Blender 2.93 was the last release before 3.0

As Emir said, there is no such version. Did you mean 2.76? For manuals since 2.79 you can access them through the version selection at the bottom left corner at https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/dev/. The title page of each version contains a download of the HTML pages. More recent versions of the manual are also offered as an epub.

Oops, I meant 2.69.

Any particular reason why you're using 2.69? - The earliest online and downloadable manual is for 2.79 and is here. 2.69 was released almost 10 years ago (October 2013) so is way out of date!

Documentation for version 2.68 can be found here.

@tetii He asked for 2.69, but it's there too ;)


text:
Clean from internal edges and faces
1 month blender newbie question. The first one I ask, because can't google it right.
I've created a drawer knob by duplicating and rotating 4 ovoids and later joining them together. It is visually really nice and was very simple to make, but when I look at it in edit mode I see it's a mess. Now I understand I had to use Boolean modifiers in the first place, which I didn't, but that is past now.
What I can't understand, is there a simple way to clean it up?

If it was something simpler, I could manually fix that by moving and deleting vertices and edges, but here I have thousands of edges and vertices.
My thoughts are that I could have deleted internal faces by selecting them by trait. But all the intersecting faces didn't create edges, thus, as I understand, the program interprets it all wrong.
UPDATE 16/02: so I've found out how to simply create edges on all the intersecting faces. With automerge and Split Edges and Faces options enabled one has only to select all and move a bit. The result is far from perfect, but it is working. Unfortunately, it does not solve the main problem with internals since program still does not understand what is internal. I tried Mesh -> Clean Up -> Split Concave Faces and Split Non-Planar Faces, but it didn't help in further selecting inner faces vertices only to del them.

A little language problem here: are you saying that you did not use a boolean, and did a Join instead?   (don't answer this with a comment: edit your question to clarify)

Yes, you are right, it came out not obvious what I was trying to say, so I rephrased it. Thank you.

Try this?  But first select the object and use the '/' key to isolate it in the view.

So to summarize everything that was said and what I've found, for future noob comers here as I am, here is the answer I find the fullest:
Var. A. For very simple situation the easiest built-in tool is just use
Select -> Select all by trait -> Interior faces
And then delete those faces.
Unfortunately, that does not solve the situation for anything else than a very simple geometry case.
Var. B. For many cases there is another way, that is also very simple. Thanks to james_t for pointing to this method. I think it is the best middle ground here:

First in edit mode select all with A

Check that options Auto Merge and Split Edges are both active and you have a least some understanding how they work so you've set the right Threshold depending on your object's mesh and its dimensions.
Now press G and move it all a bit so that auto-merge kicks in. The best way to keep the object in place is the following sequence: G, Right, Left, Enter
But you can do this even by mouse if placement is not of any importance to you.
Now you've prepared the mesh for next step the best way you could.

Press the / to isolate the object for everything else.
Disable the option "Toggle X-ray" if active.
Deselect everything ALT + A.
Now select all the external faces by any tool you find best. I prefer "Select box" tool. Just few Shift + LMB + rotating.
And finally, invert selection Select -> Invert or CTRL+I. You should have all the internals selected. Delete all the selected faces.
This should do the trick, but you may be left with some faces that are still partly inside, because the Auto-merge option, unfortunately, is not perfect. Though you can fix this by merging few vertices manually, if not many.
While it is a long explanation, it is a very simple method. Just wanted to make it clear to newcomers.

Var. C. If you have a very complex mesh and the above-mentioned simple solutions do not suit you, you are left only with more complex non-integrated solutions. And here you should definitely check the idea by Rick T with geometry nodes.
While it is a complex thing to do yourself on a noob level, Rick T has done all the job for you.
So, you only need to import object from blend file to yours and copy modifiers CTRL + L from his object to yours.
You can edit the nodes in Geometry nodes editor, to suite your case.
Afterwards, apply the modifier and delete everything that you do not need anymore.
Read his answer for more info.
PS: I think that there should be a simple integrated solution for such clean-ups in blender. Especially, considering that it is so popular now for 3D printers, and all that nonmanifold internal faces are a huge pain for this job. And I hope it will be added in future.
PPS: There may be other solutions, and some for more limited situations. Check answer by james_t for example.

If you want to try this in geometry nodes here's the nodes to get rid of internal geometry.
(Left to Right)
The 1st image is the original image with overlapping faces / edges
The Fixes:
The 2nd image uses the Mesh boolean node with Union. (Doesn't always work)
The 3rd image uses an "inverse mold node"
(works but some large meshes have problems)

Well, I can't say that this is a simple solution to make from draft, but since you've already made it, that looks really cool. I'm not sure if it is right to suggest it as a direct answer to my question due to some complexity in coming to this, but it does the job in the end. Thanks.

I think you are say that you used a Join operation on the objects -- is why you have all those interior vertices.
You should be able to undo your join operation as follows, so that you can use the boolean instead...

put the Joined object in Edit mode
Use the menu:: Mesh :: Separate :: By Loose Parts

You'll be back to having N original objects
Now you can use the Boolean modifier, and perhaps Apply it

Unfortunately, sometime the boolean modifier doesn't work well on some complex meshes.
Unfortunately, using a larger object with a shrinkwrap modifier doesn't create the concave surfaces you'd need to project a new objects onto your destination object.

That is a nice trick with separating by loose parts, thank you. Unfortunately, it looks more like of a workaround suitable for some situations only. It does not work with my example, because I've messed the mesh many times after joining all the ovoids, so there are places where they are already connected. No other simple way to add edges to all the intersecting faces? If so, my understanding is that a shrinkwrap modifier with more faces is the only way to create "hollow" clean object?


text:
Why bevel acts differently on half of the edges in symmetrical object
Now while learning blender I made a very simple light switch.
I want to make the four edges at front to be more rounded, so I use bevel instrument.
But for some reason it acts differently at different edges. Both variants don't suite me 100%, but at least top-left and bottom-right option I understand and also can easily fix to what I need. But I don't understand what is happening to the top-right and bottom-left edges.
Now, I've triple checked it and there are no duplicate edges or vertices or other mistakes I know of. It seems a perfectly clean symmetric mesh which I almost didn't touch. Faces seem to be ok too.
Please explain what is wrong. Thank you.

If you've checked for double vertices.. are you sure the selection is identical on all corners? Are you bevelling edges or vertices?

I'm beveling edges. I've checked for double vertices. So no double edges possible if no double vertices. Yes, all looks identical, I've selected the individual edges and beveled it independently, the result is the same. :(


text:
Boolean difference not works! model object linked
I have two objects to make hole.
Left one is the object what I want to subtract as you see , boolen make nothing happened
Right one is the mesh cylinder for just boolen test and it works.
What am I missing in my mesh?
"Inertersect" , "Union" all works but only "Difference" not working.
It's reproduced. here is link for your better understanding
https://cloud.wise-leader.com/index.php/s/jfYy1bshAECtjq8

Most probably you have flipped normals on the object you want to substract. In this example, both cylinder objects should be subtracted from the plane, but the left one isn't:

If you enable Face Orientation in the Overlays, you can see see faces of the left cylinder are showing red, meaning their inside is pointing outwards, while all the other faces are blue:

To change this, select the cylinder and Tab into Edit Mode, select all faces with A, then hit either Shift+N > Recalculate Normals to turn them all blue or if some of them stay red, select those and hit Alt+N > Normals > Flip to make blue as well.

You can now disable Face Orientation again, and as you can see on the plane back in Object Mode, both Boolean modifiers are now working:

Thanks Brinkmann!
Actually, it's not my case. But it's also good answer for such an occasion.
My case is mesh is unstable with manifold state due to hole design and boolen modifier difference effect is somehow not working.
This is happening for me since I am not experieced person for 3D modeling but just beginner with many hole drawing :) Anyway, Thanks for your professional answer !

If it's not your case, then we need more information on your objects or maybe you nbeed to upload your file... and you don't have to accept answers that don't solve your problem - because others might have the same and it would be a bit disappointing if this is marked as accepted but it doesn't help. As an optional answer it will stay here as long as I don't delete it ;)

Problem reproduced and modleing data linked now !

Gordon's answer is correct, I opened the example file you uploaded and turned on Face Orientation in the Overlays and the Cylinder is red, and the rectangular prism is blue. Selecting the cylinder and going to Edit Mode, selecting all the faces and pressing Shift+N to recalculate the normals resolves the issue. It's named Circle.003 so I suspect what happened was you extruded a circle, which by default when you extrude it up, its normals will face inward.


text:
Windows 10 crashes using blender
I have tried to find an answer in internet on my issue before to write in this blog but I couldn't find any. I am currently using blender 2.90.1 and after rendering a complex scene I open a new Blender file and windows suddenly crash. I have the same issue with Blender 2.83. I am testing the software with 'The Junk Shop' scene. I have updated Windows with the latest updates but I think I have an issue with my GTX 1060 and windows doesn't update the latest graphic drivers as it was doing before.
Please see below the Computer info:
I hope that some one can help me
Thanks

Try installing the latest stable version of blender.

Thanks Akai, I just tried Blender 2.83.5 with 'The Junk Shop' and in the viewport in Rendered mode the computer crashes when the render end. I really don't have any idea!

You can try to manually update the graphics driver for your Nvidia GPU and Intel GPU.

Thanks Robert I will follow your advice

Hi Robert, I updated the drivers but unfortunately the situation is worst, now blender crashes when i try to open any files.

just to clarify the software crash only when I try to open the file from Blender.

Only Blender crashing instead of the entire operating system, would be an improvement though? With the currently provided information it's hard to tell where the problem is, I would need to take a look at the crash log and possibly additional debug logs. I suggest you try the workaround described in this ticket first.

Hi Robert thanks for your help. the problem Blender is all windows crash the operating system. i will try with blender 2.92

@1234stelle Just to make sure that there's no miscommunication (regarding program window or Windows the OS). Does only Blender close or is the entire computer crashing (blue screen, power off, automatic rebooting)?

Hi Robert, i just did a test also with 2.92 and Windows 10 crashes ( blue screen) I really don't understand, now all the drivers are updated for both Nvidia and Intel. Do you think is a Blender bug?

I don't know if this works but, try installing MSI AfterBurner and set the fanspeed to high and then apply changes then try using blender? Just give it a shot.

Thanks every body maybe i found the way. I uninstalled all the Nvidia driver and and install the following: https://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx

I had to search better for the correct driver. there is a different between Descktop driver and Notebook driver. Thanks to everyone for your help
this looks the correct driver

https://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx
for now it look that it is working properly
Thanks

That's my fault then, I've linked the desktop driver in my comment above. Sorry about that.

Hi Robert and everyone Blender is working better but not completely. Sometimes when I open a file from Blender the software works properly for a while but after few minutes the software crash and also Windows 10. I really don't understand why this still happens. At this point I don't know any more. If anyone what this is the link to download the blender file. https://we.tl/t-eihK87TJOM

I would suggest you check the Windows event log and/or note the error displayed on the blue screen, should Windows display one. You should be able to get more help with this information on a Windows forum. Blender in itself can't crash the operating system, so the issue must be somewhere else.

I started this file in blender 2.83 and I am currently using the 2.90.1


text:
Combining image texture and brick texture
I am trying to combine a BRICK TEXTURE and some IMAGE TEXTURE but without a great success.
I would like that stone textures fit perfectly inside each paving slabs.
I found this exercises very challenging, it will be wonderful if anyone can be any advice or explaining how these kind of nodes are working together.

the image below is what i am trying to avoid

Yorkstone T4 642 x 427 Px RGB 250kB

Yorkstone T5 700 x 396 Px RGB 62kB

Test 1 made with Gimp

Could you show the two source images? What is their size? Are you able to overlap them the way you want in an image editor software?

Thanks very much i am going to add the 2 picture

I would like to adapt the stone texture to each slabs because this will be very useful for other different paving pattern. I really want to avoid any other editing software.

perhaps it's just me but what you want is not clear at all, could you reformulate? Are your trying to avoid repeating patterns?

Sorry this is what i would like to achieve, please see new image above

I would like that each texture stone image fits inside a slab made with brick texture.
is it clear???

yes, it's clear  ;)

but i think that brick texture isn't still able to provide thi things at time being!!! :(

Here's a useful thread: https://blenderartists.org/t/cycles-brick-tricks-0-1/685934

LazyDodo's Cycles Brick Tricks
In the linked Blender artis thread of the title, Lazy Dodo is presenting a collection of complex nodegroups themed around the procedurale Brick texture. In practice is reconstructing them node by node with the built in function.
In addition to the usual parameters, their nodes outputs provide several useful function, like the UV of each tile present in the "brick_wall_basic" nodegroup you can find in the blendfile provided by the author or use the add-on:

We can easily use this texture to repat a pattern by simply using the UV output as a Texture Coordinate of our images.
Give those two pattern, in order to overlap them, we'll use the original Brick texture Color output as a mask for a nice procedural variation:

Sincronize the input values between the two procedural textures to ensure a correct overlap between them as long as possible (Brick Texture has no input for the Frequency or the Squash, you'll have to update manually or implement the mask in the nodegrup):


text:
How can i cover a space between a path i drew?

Hi, im a trully beginner in blender. I made this logo and now i need to fill that empty space between the path i used to draw the logo. Fill it or cover the top and bottom with some kind of "surface" but i have no idea how. Any suggestions ?

Related https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/136/how-can-i-convert-an-svg-to-a-mesh/ and https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/18177/how-fill-face-between-irregular-curves or https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/43287/how-do-i-add-polygons-to-fill-a-face and https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/1754/how-to-fill-a-hole-in-face

Go into the curve settings and choose 2D.

Hi go in edit mode and go into edge select. While holding shift, select all the top and bottom edges on the Nike logo and press F (stands for fill) there you go.

The thing is, the Nike logo is made with the path option like so it has no edges and when i try to press F to fill it, a message appears saying "Cannot make segment". Im gonna had a new picture in the question so you can see.

Sorry, I don't know about that. I don't use the path tool that much.

No Problem. Hope you figure it out soon. (:

Looks like you got it.


text:
"Unwrapping" a texture on a model created in photoscan
I am an archaeologist with little background in blender. I'm not sure if unwrapping is what I want, so I put the word in quotes.
I have a model of a pot which I generate in photoscan with a pattern running around it. It already has a UV map, which was generated when Photoscan has generated a texture for the pot. However the texture doesn't show the band of decoration as a continuous pattern. I would like to be able to unwrap the pattern in one long strip as a 2D image, so that I could publish the flattened image. How would I do that?
Here is an illustration of what I am after, since I don't know the correct terminology.

Your question isn't very clear as to where exactly the problem is. [Edit] it with screenshots of the pot, of the texture created by Photoscan, what you expect to see on the texture and where, model in Edit mode. Does the mesh have UV map at all or do you want to map existing texture on the mesh which doesn't have UV map?

It already has a UV map. I think I probably am going to end up redoing the UV map from what I've read.

If you redo the UV map the texture will no longer correspond the mesh (possible to fix sometimes, but more often is very complex). If you want to make texture looking in another way than it is from Photoscan then you can create additional UV map organized as desired and bake all texture details to new image based on new UV map. See https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/13508/how-do-i-bake-a-texture-using-cycles-bake and https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/15510/possible-to-bake-texture-to-new-uv-map


text:
Rigid body: gears physical animation
I've a problem with the rigid body animation of 2 created gears. The gears always end up overlapping each other.

Edit:
The gears in the first file have a module of 1.5. When the sensitivity of the gears is set to 0.01 the animation works.
The gears in the second file have a module of 0.5. In the second blend file the animation still breaks even with a sensitivity of 0.01. Are the gears in the second blend file to small to animate with rigid body?
Second blend file

Welcome to Blender SE. Looks like you could get smoother action if you increased the sensitivity margin. Try 0.1 on both cogs.

@OroNZ, thank you this seems to solve my problem. A sensitivity of 0.1 works fine. 0.01 also works but 0.001 will brake the animation again.

To improve the accuracy of the Rigid Body simulation you can increase the Steps setting in the Rigid Body World settings of the Scene properties. This defaults to 60 - larger values breaks the simulation into smaller steps at the expense of taking longer to calculate - try increasing by a factor of 10 or more. Smaller steps results in better collision and a more stable simulation.
However, that isn't actually the problem with your animation. The problem is actually due to the meshes themselves - the normals are flipped and pointing 'into' the object rather than 'out'. This means that the collision becomes confused and Blender is behaving as if the objects are actually caught within each other which results in the 'stuck' animation as one cog attempts to turn.
The solution is to simply select each cog in turn, enter Edit mode (Tab), select all (A until all is selected) and press Ctrl+N to Make Normals Consistent. This tells Blender to recalculate the normals, by default pointing them 'out' of the object.
Once the normals were corrected I didn't need to make any other changes on your file for the cogs to animate.

With the first file this seems to have little imapct. The animation in first file works if I change the value of the sensitivity to 0.1 or 0.01. For the second file this solutions doesn't work. I tried setting the solver iterations to 100, 200, 500 and 1000 for the second file.

Sorry - my bad - I was actually intending to describe the Steps setting, not the iterations. However, I think I've spotted the problem and it isn't actually related to the Rigid Body settings.... I'll update my answer.

thank you. Once the normals are fixed the animation runs fine.


text:
Micopolygon Displacemt Issues
whenever following along a guide for micropolygon displacement, I encounted a weird issue where everything seems shifted and out of place.
It's supposed to be bricks.

Plug a texture coordinate + mapping node into the 'Vector' input on the image textures.

You are using a nightly build of Blender with vector displacement support. The displacement workflow is slightly different, see my answer here: https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/104471/what-value-does-the-displacement-input-of-the-cycles-material-output-node-expect/104512#104512


text:
Is there a way to make smooth interpolated motion with the graph editor?
I do animating entirely manually, sometimes 1 frame by 1 frame. Then, I discovered the graph editor and thought it might possibly have some use, though I have yet to see how.
Suppose I make a basic animation of a cube moving in a diamond-like shape. Is there an easy way to use the graph editor to turn that diamond motion into circular motion so that the cube now looks like it is orbiting something? Because otherwise, even if you add extra frames manually, it will still look jagged, just a little bit less so.

maybe it's possible but why wouldn't you use a Follow Path constraint to make your object follow a bezier circle?

or parent to a Circle and animate that.

I don't think any of you read the post. Firstly I asked about the graph editor. Secondly, this is about more than a basic circle, this is about a technique that can be applied to any animation using a circle only as a basic goal to illustrate the technique clearly.

I often find it more effective to manually keyframe animation or emulate physics than use built in features, particularly when modifiers or physics are going to interfere with possible future additions.  The Graph editor is ideal for this. It is arguably one of Blender's most powerful animation features.  The behavior such as speed, location, central animation origin points, and interpolation between keyframes is easily manipulated and can end up precisely to your liking. Playing with curves and their shapes give you power over how objects behave which can be most useful for comedy.

A couple of examples - https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/109883/object-wont-drop-after-keyframing-
https://blender.stackexchange.com/questions/99821/how-can-i-shift-or-move-an-entire-animation-to-a-different-location/99911#99911

Yes, you can do this with the graph editor:

If your goal is to exactly follow a particular path or route, then there are certainly better ways to go about it (such as using a follow path constraint, as mentioned by moonboots), but you can in fact make a perfect circle using the graph editor without any keyframes at all; using sine modifiers:

Here I've set a sine modifier on both the X and Y channels with Phase Offset on the X channel of $\frac{\pi}{2}$ (or 90°). The Amplitude and Phase Multiplier are only set in order to match the example from above.
The follow path constraint is easier to control when you are looking to.. well, follow a particular path (big surprise), but often you don't care too much about the exact path but more that each motion flows smoothly into the next. The graph editor gives you fine control over exactly how that happens.


text:
Render Image F12 shows non-existing plane after Boolean modifier
I created a hole in the top of my door using a Cube and a Boolean modifier.
I show you several screenshots of my Blender in various Viewuport shadings, where you can see right through the hole, into the blue colored hallway with a lamp in it.
When I press Render image F12, this hole is closed with a plane of some sort.
I do not understand this, in all other 3D views there is no face at all, no plane, it's a hole, why is there a plane visible in the final ender Image?
I updated with an extra image in Solid View where I put the normals view on.
This could explain something?
Thank you!
Regards.
Pictures:

Final F12 render Image shows plane:

Normals view on:

I guess you didn't restrict render on boolean object

Yes sorry I forgot to delete the older question, I deleted the older post right now.

Thanks for your help.
I solved it, the plane which blocked the view did exist in my scene.
I created it a little while ago and hidden it from 3Dview, but not in Render Image F12.
Also it was located nearly on the bottom of a long list of objects.

Thank you for posting your question clearly.
1. make sure you have really applied the boolean modifier on your object (lamp).
If you did and you still get a non-boolean operation in your lamp, additional objects may have been created.
2. Go to your outliner and click on your modeled lamp. See if there are any children under the main object.
3. If there are (and surely there will), just click the EYE icon and the CAMERA icon to the right of the outliner icons. Those will disable render view and display view.
Try rendering now.
It is quite possible you have a duplicated object as a result of the boolean operation. But instead you´re seeing the END result object. At render time the original boolean object gets also rendered.
If you find this is the answer, please click the check mark icon to the left of this post, and thank you for your consideration as the answer voting it up.
BFCT_Schiller


text:
Blender 2.79b crashes on start up
*Sorry for my bad English.
I'm trying to install and use Blender 2.79b on my new computer which uses Windows 10 64-bit. But it always crashes on startup. After double-clicking, a console pops up and shows "found bundle python: C:\Program Files\Blender Foundation\Blender\2.79\python". Then the window of blender show up with grey screen and it closes.
I tried to run it in compatibility mode for Windows XP, Vista, 7 and 8, updated the last GPU driver. I have installed Microsoft C++ Distributed 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2017. I tried Blender 2.79 but it had the same problem.
My specs:
Intel Pentium G4400
8 GB RAM
Nvidia Geforce GT 1030

Try a daily build compiled with MSVC14 from https://builder.blender.org/download/ I had the same symptoms with all Blender 2.79 releases

Please make sure that your:

Drivers are up to date (GPU especially).
The installation ran without problems.
Python is correctly installed and is the latest version (3.6.4 or 3.6.5).

Something else you can try is starting up cmd.exe (on Windows 10 you can just type that in the Start Menu and it will show up) and then from the console you can run Blender.
For example, assuming Blender is located on your C: drive and the path is "C:\Program Files\Blender Foundation\Blender\blender.exe", you'd type this line into your command window:
C:\Users\USER_NAME>"C:\Program Files\Blender Foundation\Blender\blender.exe"

EDIT: I think it's better I put this in my answer than a comment.
I looked up that error code which then led me to Blender's Web Manual. There are a list of commandline options to choose from, but for I suggest you run the following in cmd (single line):
"C:\Program Files\Blender Foundation\Blender\blender.exe" --debug-memory --debug-gpumem --debug-all > results.txt.
Please upload the results to any upload service and provide the link in your question, also check what output it gives specifically to memory

Thanks, I have just installed the lastest GPU driver, ran it by using cmd.exe, installed Python version 3.6.5. And I'm sure that the installation ran without problems. But the blender didn't start anyway.

When you ran it through cmd, did it not write out any messages to the console window? For example, the message "AL lib: (EE) UpdateDeviceParams: Failed to set 44100hz, got 48000hz instead" prints out if I start up Blender through cmd (it still works though). Do you not get some other message(s) like this?

When I ran it through cmd, I found an error message "Error: EXCEPTION_ACCESS_VIOLATION". I searched it on google and I checked that I had installed the lasted GPU driver and Windows updates but it wouldn't help at all.

I had tried all the solution I found, but it had been no use. So I downloaded Blender 2.78 and ran it, and it worked! Try other version if you have the same problem as me.