If by loudest users you mean pros who promote blender in companies, on the internet, etc, then, yes I’m a loud user.
If giving us what we request is a bad thing for you, for me it’s the opposite, it will help a lot of blender user’s and that would show that the BF is open to pros requests.
It’s not like we are asking for the world, it’s just a tiny modifier.
And if that open the valves, it’s better, check what Pablo did for the sculpt mode, imagine this for all blender?
And there is a difference, we ask for this modifier for years, it’s not something we want now because we just need it today.
It’s something we struggle with since years, something that could help us in our daily work, to show to our customers/boss/collegues that blender is dope.
So, I think you should reconsider your point of view and yes, you will use it, except if you don’t make any modeling.
Also, why bother posting and arguing if you will never use it?
Requests about this from 2014 (and 10 years ago someone mentioned) is a bit embarrassing, and I quite often see requests for this (and modifier plug-in support in general) on Twitter under various Blender hashtags.
As for speed… well, 3D Studio Max Edit Poly modifier (and plug-ins) would like to say hello. (Doesn’t Blender have more active developers than Autodesk these days?)
Also, someone mentioned that everything nodes (perhaps only currently) is slower than stack… but shouldn’t that be built for this (and general plug-in support)? I mean, otherwise it seems like a lot of wasted potential.
If giving us what we request is a bad thing for you,
hey now, don’t put words in my mouth, that’s not very nice , i said unsustainable. giving people what they want can or cannot be bad (sometimes people are asking for things that are better solved in a different way for instance) but i made no judgement on this. I did say that giving things to whomever is screaming loudest seems unsustainable long term.
it’s better, check what Pablo did for the sculpt mode
I think the key here is ‘what pablo did’ , he sat down, wrote the code and submitted it for inclusion, while this seems to be on a ‘lets make a lot of noise and try to pressure the devs into giving me what i want’-train. Pablo was/isn’t a core dev, he’s a talented guy with a passion! if the core devs don’t feel doing your pet request (which given how long this has been dragging on does seems to be the case) find your own pablo that rallies for the things you care about!.
Also, why bother posting and arguing if you will never use it?
Cause i disagree with how you are doing things and not necessarily what you want.
It’s still allowed to respectfully disagree with people right? did i miss a memo?
I think you have significantly misunderstood what’s going on in the gif. The merge by distance works there because that operation happens before the bevel. The bevel happens after it in the modifier stack. The point of this modifier would be to non-destructively clean up the mesh so that bevels can be applied to it without many visual artifacts. For example, boolean operations tend to create many very closely neighbouring vertices that don’t play very well with bevel.
It’s important to understand that while you do coding for living, people like Wazou do modeling for living. You code the tools, but he uses them on daily basis to create high end work. The decision about usefulness of certain tool for daily production modeling tasks can be much more truthfully judged by people who actually do production modeling tasks on day to day basis.
You’ve already voiced your opinion against radial mode of the array modifier, and this decision still costs many Blender artists around the world minutes or even hours of their time every day…
I don’t like when discussions turn into scandals. I think that such incidents build tension between people, independently of outcome. That is the human nature. But…
At some point I started to think about merge modifier (around 1 year ago). I noticed, that I am not the only one, such request appeared here and there. And when I digged a bit deeper, it turned out to be quite a long story.
And all this now feels weird, almost as conspiracy fiction in action.
I am not demanding this feature desperately, probably similar stuff is coming relatively soon with node modelling system or whatever devs are making right now.
As for topic, everything was said already, there is nothing to add, except picking more words to bash devs, which won’t help at all.
It is better to close it until we get any news on merge modifier.
I want to add my 2 cents here as well. I agree with @Wazou, this is a much needed modifier. I don’t agree it is predominantly Hard Ops, Speedflow and Fluent users. I enjoy working directly with modifiers without those addons and also often find the need of a merge-verts modifier.
Non-destructive modeling is a whole new (and IMO much better) way of designing. Using the iterative nature of it, one can instantly and quickly create objects that are difficult if not impossible to create otherwise.
Take this example. This is a hose clamp created in MoI3D, a NURBS solids modeler by the talented Vitaly Bulgarov.
It has always been a good test for me to see if this object can be built in a poly (surface) modeler. Up to now, I’ve been largely unsuccessful using other modelers and approaches. AND here’s where I got using an all Blender 2.8 modifier workflow!
The only way this can work, is by using an iterative approach to tweaking the very simple shapes. By fine-tuning this way, the above model can be created. Below are the simple objects that create the clamp.
So, I just want to second the motion that professional designers would very much like the developers to understand and empathize that even a “less than perfect” implementation of a merge verticies modifier would go a long way to helping us out.
As you can clearly see the merge modifier is highly wanted, just look at the petition and ppl who signet it, aren’t blender made by community? Thats what it says on their web page “made by you” but to be right we cannot made merge modifier because its impossible for us to import that as an addon. Community is funding blender because we want to make blender better but it seems that our voice is not worth of anything to them.
This is exactly the wrong idea to have about this situation. If you want the feature now, nothing is stopping you from implementing the feature in your own branch of Blender. Nothing. The patch you make may not be accepted into master- but it’s good that Blender has high standards. If you have a history of good commits, it takes less time to review and eventually your work is trusted based on your history of good work. Look at Pablo Dobarro- the guy’s in his twenties, started out as an artist, got interested in a feature, and he works at the Blender foundation now. I think he’s been developping less than two years. And now he’s absolutely revolutionizing the sculpt tools. He’s even making feature parity with Z-Brush seem like a realistic goal.
The development model isn’t what’s flawed. What’s flawed is the mentality that says the devs are beholden to users that don’t code or even contribute to the developer fund. I’m not trying to call you or anyone else out, but this is a pattern that I see often on these feature-request pages. They don’t owe us anything. Even dev-fund members are really donating money, unless they pay for developer time. And that’s the long and short of it. Blender grows when individual people contribute to it. All of the nice-to-have stuff is the responsibility of the community. The core dev team is focused on the need-to-have and hard-to-do. Who else is going to be able to spend months working on complex features? But taking a day here, a week there, another day here to spend on small features just pushes back the big features- which you have complained about!
Last, I want to reiterate that the OpenMeshEffects branch of Blender will solve a lot of the problems people on this thread are upset about- if it can get off the ground. It’s already showing a lot of promise. It’s already got a merge modifier. It’s easy to build. Even if you’ve never built Blender before, you can get started in about a week’s effort or less if you’re tech savvy.
Yes, one thing, the real world. I cannot be all the things in the world. For that same reason with thousand of people asking for this feature no one have the patch inside blender, and nobody uses the forks.
I object to i said it slightly worried me the idea of giving things to people that scream the loudest, since it’s just gonna lead to more screaming people all with their own needs, which is not a sustainable model.
edit:
hold on… i didn’t even say i objected, i said it slightly worried me that this way of doing things wasn’t sustainable.
Do you think that all of the “thousand of people” that want this feature can’t code? Maybe you can’t and don’t have time to learn, but that isn’t true of everyone that wants the feature. I wasn’t trying to respond to you personally, I was trying to explain why an idea that you share with many others is wrong. I used the word “you” in the general sense, my bad. So I’ll rephrase:
If one wants the feature now, nothing is stopping one from implementing the feature in one’sown branch of Blender. Nothing.
That is a tired and old argument. The simple fact is it is hard for artists to “learn to code” just as it is hard for developers to become “world class artists.”
I understand that. But why should someone’s ideas be prioritized if that someone isn’t contributing to the project, at least financially? It seems to me that the people actually doing the work have the right to make the calls. Of course the software is for the users in the end, but the developers of the software don’t owe anyone their work. How are they to determine whose needs are most important, or whose timeline or business? Just balancing and weighing all the requests could be a full time job.
It was a problem for quite some time that there was no way users could be heard. Now, there is https://blender.community/c/rightclickselect/ which may not be official, but there are developers and people like Pablo who are actively referring to it.
What’s the reason for starting a petition, if there is literally a Blender community page which is dedicated to exactly that? If the feature was outstanding in there, that would give a very clear sign.
What happens right now is trying to be as loud as possible. That’s very disrespectful in my opinion and should not be supported, as it would send out the wrong signal to the community. And to be very clear, I think the modifier would be awesome!
What I can see is that the merge modifiers posts on RCS have a lot of votes each and still no merge modifiers from the devs.
Same for others highly requested features, so I don’t think RCS really works.
It’s more like when a dev has some time to spare, he comes on the site and pick the one he is interested in.
I don’t say it’s a bad thing, but RCS is just a site where people put a wish and prey for a dev to make it true.
I asked several devs for the merge modifiers over the years, but no responses.
I made this petition to try another way, not to pressure or annoy them, but to show the BF that people need and want that modifier.
It seems that this is working, Devs came here, talk a little, they can see our arguments and they will decide.
I don’t see how it is disrespectful, I’m not puting a knife on their throats.
Listen to you guys, you only are there because you think it’s disprespectful but you are ok with the proposal.
In fact everybody want the modifier to be in blender.
(Doesn’t Blender have more active developers than Autodesk these days?)
