Weld threshold removed from symmetry in 2022?

[Anonymous]

This seems like a really strange thing to remove. What's the solution for that now? It's making a huge mess of my verts.

[logan_foster_adsk]

As a part of the work that went into the Symmetry modifier for 2022.0 we attempted to make the modifier smarter so that it could better handles the operation that it was doing without mangling your models (i.e. welding vertices together from multiple elements, applying the weld globally across all vertices, etc.). In lots of cases this goal work exactly as intended, but in other cases it doesn't, and for that I apologize.

The good news is that we have the "Weld Threshold" functionality restored in beta, and if people want to check it out (and anything else that is in the works) then I kindly invite you to apply for beta

Logan Foster
Product Owner - 3ds Max  

[blakerobinson]

---

@lorddavius wrote:

@blakerobinson Indeed I can repro those issues, and indeed they seem NOT related (at least not at first sight) to the weld threshold but how the slice takes place. If you go in very small objects this is more pronounced indeed (and something that I missed completely while testing it).

---

I was hesitant to post in the thread based on the title at first, but I think it's useful as I have a feeling all the people that think they're having issues with Weld threshold are actually having problems with the Mirror Slice option.

It was indeed a dense mesh that I first ran into the problem with along the seam. I think that this will also affect certain users a lot more than others (especially games artists where it's very common to have both a dense mesh and mirror along the x axis). I'm glad I found that manual-slice workaround today, as it means I might actually be able to move to '22.

[gandhics]

I;m sure dev will monitor this thread.

But, if you want old dummy weld back, you could simply add Vertex Weld modifier, too.

Other user complained old methods. SO, dev listened and changed the behavior.

[senorpablo]

---

@RobH2 wrote:

I'm a little dismayed at the tone this thread has taken and the amount of venom being thrown at the Max developers. I don't work for autodesk and am just a user like all of you but I've been around a long time and I can tell you that the developers I'm had exchanges with are intelligent, dedicated and care deeply about Max.

There are 100's of 1000s of little items to keep track of in Max. I hope you can find a way to give them a break. You've let your dissatisfaction and wishes be known, there is no use to keep piling on. It's a "minor" inconvenience and there is a good workaround.

I can name several other leading softwares that have annoying changes that I wish were fixed but there is no use to keep hammering on the dead horse. This is the nature of software development. It's never perfect. This is not an inadequacy in the Max team. It's up to us to adapt and go make a living with it, even if it means having to work around oddities and minor issues. 

---

How do you know if it's a "minor inconvenience"? That's your point of view. It's presumptuous to suggest you know how other customers use or rely on this functionality, and to what extent.

Removing of features like this, in a non destructive workflow, means that your files and models appear and behave one way in a previous version, and another way in a newer version. That's unacceptable. Especially when no one can convincingly articulate why the features were removed in the first place. 

Also, your comment about 100's-1000's of features to keep track of isn't really applicable in this case. Symmetry has/had six inputs. When one of those goes missing, it wasn't a mistake, it was deliberate. If a developer can't keep track of 6 inputs, they have no business working on Max. Developers needs to understand the basic functionality, and the ramifications of tinkering with whatever they're working on. When 1 of the half dozen inputs goes missing, for no good reason, you can be sure they don't know how people use their product, or the impact it would have. For every person posting on this forum about this, there are likely tens of thousands of users who are, or will be, equally dismayed and annoyed by this change when they switch to 2022. It's early days, the vast majority of users haven't even installed it yet. 

And, that's the whole point. The Max developers made wrong assumptions about he impact this change would have.  And, for no good reason. And that's a really big deal for software at this level. This is not the only feature that was removed in recent versions. This one has enough support behind it that it will likely get fixed. I'm not so lucky. It seems this is a pattern that is developing--breaking or removing features that have existed for decades, for no good reason--and is becoming more common with time. I've been using Max for decades, and I can't recall fundamental features like this ever going missing in all that time. I can remember other bad design choices, such as caddy controls and removing the legacy select by name dialog, but not to this extent. So yeah, people are displeased, and the frustration is deeper than removing one feature, it's about poor design and development choices which do not respect the customer becoming more common and frequent. It's about getting the message across that we as customers do not like this behavior, please stop engaging in it.

Add features without breaking things. 

[gandhics]

How do you know if "there are likely tens of thousands of users who are, or will be, equally dismayed and annoyed by this change"?
That's your point of view. It's presumptuous to suggest you know how other customers use or rely on this functionality, and to what extent.

Yes, it was a byproduct of implementing other users request.
Did dev made a mistake? It looks like it. Then, it need to be fixed and move on.

There might have been a few case of so called "poor design and development choices" for you. But; I don't agree "becoming more common and frequent.".

Actually 3dsMax is very good at not breaking features compare to all other DCCs. They even carries multiple version of algorithm not to break old files.

Sure, you give whatever message you want. But, as RobH2 mentioned, you comment looks more line venom than constructive criticism.

[senorpablo]

---

@gandhics wrote:
How do you know if "there are likely tens of thousands of users who are, or will be, equally dismayed and annoyed by this change"?
That's your point of view. It's presumptuous to suggest you know how other customers use or rely on this functionality, and to what extent.

Yes, it was a byproduct of implementing other users request.
Did dev made a mistake? It looks like it. Then, it need to be fixed and move on.

There might have been a few case of so called "poor design and development choices" for you. But; I don't agree "becoming more common and frequent.".

Actually 3dsMax is very good at not breaking features compare to all other DCCs. They even carries multiple version of algorithm not to break old files.

Sure, you give whatever message you want. But, as RobH2 mentioned, you comment looks more line venom than constructive criticism.

---

How do I know this problem will likely effect tens of thousands of users? It's an educated guess based on experience. I've been using and working with other 3DS users daily on a professional basis for over 26 years. Companies of all sizes, several industries, with users ranging from 10-300. I've also been a software developer for almost 30 years. I happen to know that a very small percentage of Max users even know about the forum, much less participate. I know firsthand that the vast majority of Max users won't upgrade to the latest version for a year or more. I also know, based on my experience discovering very serious bugs in Max, that many go unnoticed because typical users don't have the skill or desire to figure out what's going on. As an example, around Max 2012, I discovered a bug in which the skylight shadows took 2x longer to render than the previous version. We went from spending 1-2 hours a day waiting for rendering, to 2-4 hours. No one else had reported that bug on the forum; they hadn't even realized what was going on, despite skylight being a very popular feature, and the time wasted significant. Point of all that being, many people are effected, or annoyed, by something like removing the weld threshold, but there are varying degrees of awareness. The fact that 2022 has been out less than a month now, and many people are posting about this feature being removed, means that there will be a large percentage of users who will have an issue with this, as time goes on and more people install and use 2022, which could be delayed for a year or more. Is my estimate high, perhaps. But, in cases like these, that's the prudent side to err on--the conservative side. You must assume that a choice like this will effect more people than you anticipate, not less. This should not be apologized for, or minimized, which my contention with the post I responded to. Don't assume it's a minor inconvenience, assume it's a big one. Especially when there is zero upside to making a change like this. 

Kudos to Max for not breaking old files? That's a requirement for any commercial software, not a feature. And yes, Max has been pretty decent over the years of not breaking features. Especially with respect to modifiers. Why am I calling this a trend? Because I have two examples in the last two versions of this happening, specifically in modifiers, and can't think of any similar examples in 26 years. That's why. Why not strive to maintain that positive aspect of development, why not call it out before this trend becomes a much larger problem?

[gandhics]

"It's an educated guess based on experience."

So, it is a guess. Hmm..

"I've been using and working with other 3DS users daily on a professional basis for over 26 years. "

Is it some kind of entitlement or something? How about this, I have been using and working with 3DS 30 years. Is that give me any special power? NO.

"Companies of all sizes, several industries, with users ranging from 10-300. I've also been a software developer for almost 30 years. I happen to know that a very small percentage of Max users even know about the forum, much less participate. I know firsthand that the vast majority of Max users won't upgrade to the latest version for a year or more. I also know, based on my experience discovering very serious bugs in Max, that many go unnoticed because typical users don't have the skill or desire to figure out what's going on."

None of this prove that you can claim "There are likely tens of thousands of users who are, or will be, equally dismayed and annoyed by this change". If you want to report bug, please do so. But, do not pretend that some how you represent majority of users. Simply because it is not.

Again I'm agree that it is an issue for some. I also agree that this could be fixed. What I don't agree with you is that your exaggerated over the top response and typical generalized accusations. Look all the long writing you wrote here. What does it do you you or anyone? Is it worth it? Heck, this time I was generous enough read all these and respond. But, many will just skip this rant.

[spacefrog_]

i dont think its necessary to get into a fight over this issue

removing the threshold was certainly a design error during the planning stage of the new symmetry code

And i also guess that this can and will be reversed and the option will be brought back in with an update ( of course i dont know for sure )...

If all things are failing and this does not happen ... well the symmetry code is in the SDK, and i will do a recompile with the flag available again ... (  i did similar things in the past already )

[sebsto]

Having the weld threhshold back would be nice, yes. I have a lot of super close support loops in Hard Surface High Poly Models and my ususal go to setting is 0.01.

Still, the new symmetry modifier is pretty cool and I am happy about the addition.

[Anonymous]

I'm so glad this topic is alive now, fighting symmetry removed threshold for 2nd month. There's alternative work around, actually two.

1) Scale object by 1000% make a symmetry resize back to 10%

2) There's radial symmetry script for 25$ that still has threshold 

Autodesk please fix it, this's very crucial aspect of the modeling

[logan_foster_adsk]

We appreciate everyone posting, but for clarification we had already intended to return the weld threshold. In fact we have this running in the current 3ds Max beta if anyone is curious to try it (please see my previous post why this change was made). 

In regards to suggestions on how to get weld threshold functionality in 2022.0 the items suggested above are not what I would recommend if you need the weld threshold.

1) The 2022.0 symmetry uses an automatic weld threshold of 0.01 scene units. Applying a scale won't be of any benefit because a scale is a multiplier transform that affects the reads and adjusts the underlying Mesh data at the end after the symmetry weld would be applied as such the scale wouldnt make any affect unless the transforms are collapsed. However what is important is that the welding is only taking place alone the cut line so this still might not provide the solution you need. 

2) If having a weld threshold is critical to you today, if you load in a pre 2022.0 file with symmetry the modifier will load in a legacy mode (which is provided for compatibility support because data changes can affect information above it on the stack). This legacy version of the modifier that would load in 2022.0 will have the weld threshold and use the older unoptimized code that we provided in previous releases. From there you could copy and paste the legacy version of the modifier to reuse its legacy settings elsewhere in your scene. We know that this isn't optimal but it will let you work around for the time being.

I hope that this helps provide some clarity. As I said we have restored this functionality in the beta, which anyone is free to apply for and join if they want to see for themselves. 

[JezEmin]

Not sure I've read this right, but are you saying that you rolled out an updated modifier in 3DS Max 2022 with a bit of it missing, which you're going to return in an update?

If that's the case, isn't that clearly where the problem lies? 

Why not simply wait until something is COMPLETE (and not half-baked) before releasing it?  It'd save ALL this protesting/headache/workaround and is an altogether better more professional look for Autodesk......

(excuse me if I've misunderstood).

[RobH2]

I can't figure out where all of this negativity, venom, angst and blame is coming from. It's not helpful and it's embarrassing. This forum is better than that and is supposed to be a group of professional minded people helping each other, not one of those inane adolescent forums where the users scream insults and vularities at each other. Let's not devolve into that idiocy. 

Max has 100s of 1000s of functions. The one here (if you read closely) was redesigned and the Threshold was replaced by an automatic algorithm in an effort to streamline and improve it. Let me say that again for emphasis: "The one here (if you read closely) was redesigned and the Threshold was replaced by an automatic algorithm in an effort to streamline and improve it."

The development team didn't realize that users would want to keep the original spinner. Now they do. Everyone has shouted loud and clear, mostly in a very unprofessional way, that they want it. The developers have said that they will be returning the feature as it's now in the new Beta version. 

The modification to the tool was not "half-baked, incompetent, stupid, ridiculous' or any number of words used to disparage the development team. There are hundreds of other odd and irritating things in Max to complain about as well. Why the "pile-on" this one?  It's not a critical issue as there are several super easy alternatives. 

Come on people. Max is a tool that we all use to do incredible things. Human beings develop it, a lot of super talented human beings. Their goal is to improve Max with every release (and they have if you used it for more than 10 years), not to do subpar work and wreak havoc. Have some faith, have some patience and be respectful, because, 1) we know they listened and it's coming back, 2) there are several great/easy workarounds, and 3) it's the right thing to do. 

The world has enough hate and mass violence right now, we don't need it here. 

[domo.spaji]

---

@gandhics wrote:

But, if you want old dummy weld back, you could simply add Vertex Weld modifier, too.

Other user complained old methods. SO, dev listened and changed the behavior.

---

Old (original) Symmetry mod. doesn't weld all vertices based on threshold like vertex weld.

So maybe no so dummy as you think!?

Should we guess who are "other users"?

[domo.spaji]

Shouldn't these new features be in user manual? In case someone still reading that.

[Anonymous]

Another solution,

You should work in cm (or something smaller) but it's not enough just to change your Units in Customize menu instead you need to reimport all your objects from previous scene with higher units into the new scene with smaller units (or rescale)

Open your scene and change your units Customize -> Units setup -> meters to centimeters -> System Units setup -> meters to centimeters

Save a copy of your scene into another file (to keep scene setup) or reset scene and set Units to something smaller

Delete everything from your new scene,

File -> Import -> Merge and import all object from your previous scene (where your Units were higher like meters for example)

Automatic weld threshold should work fine

[blakerobinson]

---

You should work in cm (or something smaller) but it's not enough just to change your Units in Customize menu instead you need to reimport all your objects from previous scene with higher units into the new scene with smaller units (or rescale)

---

Reimporting everything in a new scale is a very destructive step that will destroy your modifiers, stacks, scene settings, material editor, etc. so not a good solution for anyone needing these remaining - you're also going to have to adjust scales on everything when you export it to your medium/engine/platform of choice. The best solution I've found so far is still to manually use the Slice modifier and then symmetry without 'Slice along Mirror' turned on (since it's the slice along mirror weld that's causing issues). I've uploaded a maxscript that I wrote that automatically does this in case it's of any use to anyone. you can grab it here if familiar with maxscript kind of things.

@RobH2 wrote:

I can't figure out where all of this negativity, venom, angst and blame is coming from. It's not helpful and it's embarrassing.

---

While I'm not endorsing vitriol or toxic behaviour and also find it unhelpful, on the other hand 3dsmax is not a free piece of software that the developers are doing us a favour by letting us use. It's a service people pay for. Companies can't have it both ways (not specifically Autodesk, I mean in general). They can't run an agile development process on a subscription product where a limited userbase tests the product and the actual customer base picks up the missed bugs while expecting not to get somewhat of a harsh response when basic things that paying customers rely on don't work (symmetry is a very basic tool that is heavily used, was a feature that they knew had been heavily refactored and was used as marketing material for '22). That said, hatred and horrible responses aren't very constructive, I think it's much better if everyone's sensible and calm about it, document the problem well and share workarounds, but at the same time I can understand why people get frustrated or angry with how modern software works.

Looking forward to an upcoming fix for this because the new Symmetry/Slice modifier itself is a great addition in '22 and the multi-symmetry feature will definitely be useful.

[domo.spaji]

@AnonymousI'm not looking for any solution. More reading, less writing.

@blakerobinson 

Do you know about very different Slice mod. behavior depending is it working on polys or mesh/tris?

And it has problematic behavior exactly in poly mode you suggesting.

It would show up in, what should be, very normal and logical workflow/stack build up.

Anyway, I didn't see any example where people missing weld threshold here, just crying that can't live without it.

Likewise, don't have problems with "old" Symmetry.

[blakerobinson]

---

@domo.spaji wrote:

Do you know about very different Slice mod. behavior depending is it working on polys or mesh/tris?

And it has problematic behavior exactly in poly mode you suggesting.

It would show up in, what should be, very normal and logical workflow/stack build up.

---

I do indeed know about the slightly different Slice mod behaviour. However, from my testing so far it has worked just fine in the Editable Poly meshes that I have tested it on and so it allows me to use the latest Max, so I figured I would share. If that works for others great, if not, oh well - there are other workarounds to try for other situations.

[JezEmin]

I used the term half-baked, and I am right. 

To remove something, only to then state that it's being reinstated quicker than you can blink an eye is a case of introducing something before it's ready (hence the term half-baked).

And as others have said, this is *paid* for software.

Anyone can shake a tambourine Rob, that's easy.