- the resulting mesh is a shitload of crap
- triangles and ngons everywhere
- therefore pretty much unusable to UV map and texture
- can't be subdivided without fuck ugly glitches
- retopo afterwards to get a clean mesh negates the saved time
So what's the fucking point?
renders
>>522057
>without textures
>with broken specular effects
Easy as shit to use booleans now, but I haven't used blender. Perhaps the devs haven't implemented updated algorithms.
>>522055
I never used booleans in my workflow, not until recently
It's pretty useful for blocking, where it's still low poly prior to smoothing. That way it's easier to make a perpendicular tube with an 8 sided cylinder than to shape new edges and extruding it. It's also pretty good because you can get a perfect circular extrusion than an approximate through shaping edges and extruding.
Rarely ever comes up though, not unless you do a lot of hard surface shit, and usually it's pretty situational
Judging by the OP however, I'm guessing you're just a retard that decided to boolean with retardedly mismatched polycount meshes, like that cringey OP image
>32 fucking sided cylinder, thirty fucking two
>6 faced primitive cube
>That attempt at retopo, somehow worse than the fact that you used a fucking 32 sided cylinder
How the hell would you cut a specified shape through a mesh without booleans ?
how exactly would you merge a cylinder with a cube without getting triangles?
I have seen it used properly in a character with big eyeballs. They had a boolean modifier with a cube so the eyes wouldnt clip through the cheeks and mouth.
>>522055
Some algorithms need the mesh to be a single manifold, in which case it's a hell of a useful tool. It all depends on your needs.
>- triangles and ngons everywhere
Which is only a problem for skinned or subdivided meshes.
>- retopo afterwards to get a clean mesh negates the saved time
Nah, there are cases where it'll provide a more easily usable basis for the retopo.
>>522055
To get contact edges of complex shapes right.
way less hassle than trying to eyeball it.
>>522081
I ain't even mad, I'm just amazed I actually wasted a minute to illustrate something so fucking braindead simple
>>522067
yes its for those mechas/robots/machinery you couldn't unwrap even if you had good topology
>>522133
Sorry for the stupid question, but why is it not better to not merge them in the first case and have them as two separate objects? Merging them creates a crapton of polygons
Everything in Blender exists as a check on a checklist. Everything was made by programmers with no connections or input from professional artists so everything is dildos, just there, barely usable.
>>522144
Depends on the object of course but you might not want a visible seam.
>>522055
If you can't use a fucking boolean an clean up any of the small mess it makes, or you're not willing to, just un-install the program you're using.
>>522133
That is not a cube, idiot
>>522179
>that is not a cube
>length, height and width looks about the same
>not a cube
????
>>522179
hahahha are you fucking retarded or just a troll
>>522144
Like the other anon said, it depends on the object and goal of the mesh
Mostly it comes down to if you need the connection between the two forms to flow into each other or not, and it's pretty situational
Further on when you do more hard modelling projects, you may need to keep certain parts in one mesh and some you can keep separate, it's a learning process to see if you need to merge them or not
>>522179
Oh I get it, you want primitive cube without any additional loops (for some dumb reason)
Is it a game model? Because if it is, then all the points in the OP are invalidated because there will be no smoothing, it isn't any harder to UV (game model or not, actually it's no harder if it's a cinematic model), no ngons, and triangles are fine since game model
Unless you fucked up, the triangles cut on the flat face wouldn't cause any rendering abnormalies
That said, why the fuck would you want that? In a case of preserving tri count, they wouldn't be merged together anyways
Does blender not have smoothing groups or something?
>>522202
It technically doesn't, but you can work around it by using the Edge Split modifier and setting some sharp edges. You can also set a face to use flat/smooth shading.
>>522133
You didn't waste a minute, cause 3dsmax or whatever this package is takes at least 3 minutes to load.
>>522220
you don't even need that.
just mark sharp on the edges you need, go to vertex groups and click "auto smooth" and set the angel to 100
>>522227
That's true, it's Maya and it does take a while for it to load up
But I already had it open since I was actually doing something instead of just mindlessly browsing /3/, so no anon, I only wasted about 60 seconds
>>522319
Ok, nice comeback, I can't lie.
>>522055
Works for me
>>522340
/thread
>>522055
Just don't use it...far easier to just manually patch
>>522340
what kind of shit topology is this
>>522397
If it looks good it doesn't matter
