Hello guys!!! I have this problem when I use booleans… I attach a picture of the problem… the thing is that I’m trying to model a tube with a hole in the middle… the problem comes with smoothing… I always try to make my models lowpoly and with possibility of use turbo-smooth to make it smoother for “closer takes"… so The only thing I can do is to manually “tweak” edges to make the surrounding surface to look the same “smoothed"… but some times this is frustrating due to the amount of time it takes. Is there a way of doing this easier?…

as additional information.... I always “isolate” the geometry (by adding edges) where I will make the boolean operation, in that way I maintain low poly models.

	Attachment

It’s difficult to see from the first image, but I guess the polys around the hole are dropping into a different smoothing group as a result of the boolean - you should be able to regroup them with the rest of the face using the poly select tools and the smoothing groups picker.

:: UVSAR :: Dave Merchant :: Adobe Community Professional ::

http://www.tutorialhero.com/clic...rcular_hole_in_a_mesh.php
take a look at this tutorial, it’s a different approach to hole making

Max 2.5 through 2012, win7 64bit.
GIGABYTE GV-N580UD-3GI GeForce GTX 580 3072MB
Intel Core i7-3930K 3.2GHz
4Gx8 CORSAIR CML16GX3M4A1600C9

Booleans are not the best if you want to use Turbosmooth or suchlike. If you use ProBoolean, check Quadrify, that should help with the smoothing.

Hello guys thanks for answering!!!… the smoothing groups are the same… and it still look the same. As samab recommends I tried using “make quadrilaterals” and looked for information in max reference… this method “transform” all the geometry!! of the object no matter if I isolate the “hole"… then it causes the overall shape to be “shrunken” and topology looks wrong. In max reference says that its needed to add more edges to smooth the shape before the boolean operation but still is hard to do it this way… and the resulting mesh to be low res… am I wrong?… is there a better way to do this?… thank you again.

I think those extra edges are what is causing the problem...they need to be much closer to the hole or not there at all.

I assume you are using turbosmooth to get the edges of the hole to be ‘rounded’, right?  So cut your sharp hole first, and then add an extra edge close to the hole to make turbosmooth work properly.

If you do want a sharp hole, then do the turbosmooth before the boolean, or don’t do the turbosmooth.

--3ds Max Design 2009 64bit, Direct3D 9, Win Vista Premium 64, 3ghz quadcore Xeon, Quadro FX1700--

So you are not actually going to use turbosmooth, you just want a neat quad mesh, so it may be subdivided in need be.
For neat meshes, boolean is not your friend. Better to take the time to poly model it. If you really want to use boolean, make the two operands match. The chamfer box cutter object has 16 sides/vertices around the used surface. the faces to be cut into have 6 sides/vertices, pluss the topology is different in that they have a centre edge, the cutter does not. The result of this is not going to be quads.
You probably need to reduce the sides of the cutter, but add the centre edge, and increase the number of edges for the cut surface so they match up.
That may not be easy to work out. If you are probably not going to subdivide, save yourself the pain.