Wed, Oct 17
Confirmed (in both 2.79 and 2.8), will have a look...
Sat, Oct 13
Alright thanks for your help, I appreciate the timely response. Maybe one day this could be implemented (and like you said, a check box could be an effective solution, if implemented correctly), but I love the work the dev team does, especially on 2.8 and I agree that this is not a high priority feature.
It's not that easy because the mesh doesn't have volume data for material assignments.
Ah, I see now, though the way it works is slightly unintuitive, as materials are pulled from the boolean brush instead of the object with the modifier.
For a use case where the target object has the desired materials already applied, this makes the boolean modifier significantly less useful.
Closing this because AFAIK it's not a bug. Try adding materials with the same name to the boolean brush object. It cuts with those materials:)
Sat, Oct 6
I had the same problem
Aug 21 2018
Thanks, figured out that complex booleans should be done before on simple shapes and then all stuff unioned together afterwards.
Aug 20 2018
At first, check the geometry:
Aug 18 2018
Confirm, not only "Array" modifier, but also "Mirror" modifier.
Aug 5 2018
More than a week without reply or activity. Due to the policy of the tracker archiving for until required info/data are provided.
Jul 26 2018
Thanks for the report, but blender 2.79 won’t get any fix in that area. Can you please check if 2.8 also shows same issue?
Jul 22 2018
Just noticed that I've uploaded wrong .blend.
Corrected with one that does the thing.
Jul 18 2018
Oh! Ok, That's important. I'll contact you if I have to report a crash bug.
Thank you for the report. Currently we are aware of many issues in 2.8 and actively working to fix them. But since replying to reports takes time, we have decided to limit bug reports to crashing bugs only at this point in time.
Jul 17 2018
Jun 20 2018
Jun 19 2018
Jun 18 2018
Putting this on normal (so it doesnt appear untriaged...) because there is an issue [but only with old dependency graph...]
not an issue if you use the new dependency graph
(run blender from the commandline with the --enable-new-depsgraph option)
Jun 17 2018
May 30 2018
About the situation with subsurf and no 'use modfiier stack', not it is clearer to me. The reconnect in this case seems to work like this:
May 29 2018
@Philipp Oeser (lichtwerk) Yes, of course. Sorry in case I failed to follow the preferred procedures. No secret that I'm rather new around here.
Hi @Brecht Van Lommel (brecht), @omgold (omgold), I've seen you discuss this on the mailinglist (and I understand reaching out here as for some reason this report seemed to slip under the radar)
But: why not continue here? This way others (including me) can follow and participate much better.
Sorry for the wall of text, but pasting from the mailinglist, so it doesnt get lost...
May 28 2018
sorry for the duplicate and thanks for the answer :)
Unfortunately operations that alter topology are not supporting Custom Split Normals:
The problem here is that the "Use Modifier Stack" setting is not properly taken into account for these disconnect/reconnect operators.
May 27 2018
May 25 2018
Thank you for the report. Currently we are aware of many issues in 2.8 and actively working to fix them. But since replying to reports takes time, we have decided to limit bug reports to module team members.
May 16 2018
May 14 2018
May 9 2018
@Philipp Oeser (lichtwerk) : your work here is really aprecciated - thanks again for taking the time to fix this issue so soon!
@Lukas Ziechmann (bl_cat): note this isnt commited to master yet (want to check on an issue in 2.8 first so the merge would go smooth ...)
reg. T54397: surface deform is now ported as well, but changes can happen later as well [just need proper handling of 2.79 vs. 2.8], lets stick to that report and continue discussion there
May 8 2018
*wow* - getting back from work to find the bug I reported yesterday to be already fixed for 2.79. Thank you so much @Philipp Oeser (lichtwerk)! Regarding my other bug report: T54397 , do you think I should CC a 2.8-developers directly as the surface-deform modifier isn't ported over to 2.8 yet or would that be considered annoying/ unhelpful? I don't know the policy here and I don't want to clutter their chat with unimportant messages. Thanks again for your time and effort!
missing NULL check