# Correct way to create an extruded mesh from a simple SVG shape? ie. Without creating insanely complex nonsense polygons?

I have been using Blender about a year now and I am completely blown away by how hard it has been to make a simple extrusion and filled mesh from simple SVG shapes. I don't know what I'm dong wrong. At times it seems I can get the job done but other times I just get gibberish and I'm not sure what the difference is.

For example, here is a simple star SVG from Illustrator:

I import it by File > Import SVG.

If I convert that to a mesh most ways then try to do alt f to fill it it will give me absolute nonsense like at best this:

The most effective workflow I have reproducably found is:

• Select the imported svg
• Scale X & Y by 100x or it's too tiny to see.
• Convert to Grease Pencil, select the created Grease Pencil element.
• Convert to Bezier Curve
• Convert to Mesh
• Edit mode, A to select all, F (NOT ALT F) to fill face.
• Then E to extrude and make 3D.

This gives a desired result like this:

As you can see there is one flat face of the star and the complex polygon work is on the extrusion edges as it should be.

The problem is when I did this previously I could select the remaining edge and press "F" to fill it but now I cannot. Pressing F now on the remaining edge does nothing. I must have forgotten one step in this ridiculous convoluted process. So now I only have one side filled not both.

If I try ALT-F on the remaining side it again creates nonsense which is useless.

Why is this so hard? What am I missing?

Here is a simple star SVG:

https://ufile.io/e1r3fcw1

If you can find a better method or one that lets you also fill the remaining face with a single surface I would be very grateful. I can't figure out how I did it before although I have through trial and error over and over so I know it's possible. Thanks.

EDIT 1:

I found the missing step:

• Select the imported svg
• Scale X & Y by 100x or it's too tiny to see.
• Convert to Grease Pencil, select the created Grease Pencil element.
• Convert to Bezier Curve
• Convert to Curve
• Convert to Mesh
• Edit mode, A to select all, F (NOT ALT F) to fill face.
• Then A again, and E to extrude and make 3D.

This seems to work. I am leaving this up though to ask: WHY IS THIS SO INSANELY COMPLICATED? AM I MISSING SOMETHING?

EDIT 2:

For proof, here is a star I made by this process with NO DISSOLVING STEPS REQUIRED:

Both star faces are perfectly filled. Unfortunately, yet again, contrary to Edit #1, I can't consistently reproduce it and I don't know why. Sometimes it works sometimes I am not getting it.

EDIT 3:

Well I just did it twice more and it seems to work so for whatever reason this is the ridiculous workflow for it.

• Typically, a fist step xould be X > 'Limited Dissolve', to clear edges not making a significant contribution to the definition of the shape. blender.stackexchange.com/a/126310/35559 Jan 11 at 9:26
• Why are you converting to mesh? Jan 11 at 9:53
• There is no need for that Robin. It is possible to do this WITHOUT ANY DISSOLVING. I just did it again - made a perfect 3D extruded star with both faces filled AND NO DISSOLVING. The problem is the workflow is glitchy and I can't figure out why sometimes I can make it work and other times I can't.
– mike
Jan 11 at 9:56
• The problem with dissolving is in more complex shapes it can become an absolute nightmare and there is clearly a way to do it without dissolving (I added a proof photo to my post).
– mike
Jan 11 at 10:16
• I agree , to import an svg in blender 3.0 is simple ....and so it should be BUT trying to work with it and trying to change one into a clean faced mesh has been a nightmare with the lines etc and still cant see why as it is just a simple vector , a lot simpler than other meshes so baffled why , i also cant subdivide or bevel once i have spent hours putting in a simple logo , Blender is amazing but the svg side of things is a complete nightmare , i have come up with work arounds but no idea why it is so complicated for imported vectors Jan 11 at 16:32

You don't need to convert it to grease pencil, you can convert it directly to a mesh :

This is the star after I imported it :

The origin is at an odd place so, for convenience, I center it in the star with Object > Set Origin > Origin to Center of Mass (I prefer this in this case since Origin to Geometry gives a slightly different result) and then ALT + G to recenter the star at the center of the scene :

You can scale the star up if you want.

Now you can convert it to a mesh with Object > Convert > Mesh :

And you have the mesh with the messy geometry that you don't like :

If you don't mind having n-gons, you can go to Edit Mode, switch to Edge mode (pressing 2 from the number row) just select the outline with ALT + click until you have all of it selected (or right-click if you use right-click select like me) then CTRL + I to invert the selection so that you have only the inner edges selected :

And then, you can press X then chose Edges to delete the edges and you should be left with the outline :

From there you can press A then F to fill and extrude to have your star :

I hope this solves your problem.

EDIT

Alternatively, as @Robin commented, you can also use Limited Dissolve to get rid of the unwanted geometry :

It merges all the faces by dissolving the edges and vertices separating flat regions, you can adjust the angle threshold by pressing F9 after clicking on Limited Dissolve :

• Those steps to dissolve mesh are exactly what needs to AND CAN BE AVOIDED. I have generated a 3D star (I just did it again) with faces on both sides and NO NEED FOR DISSOLVING VERTEXES OR LINES. The procedure you describe can create insanely complicated problems and trying to dissolve them all is horrible and unnecessary. There is a better workflow but it is very hard to narrow down and make work consistently.
– mike
Jan 11 at 9:55
• You can see my edits to my post where I post a perfect 3D star I was able to make WITH NO DISSOLVING. I just don't know how to do it consistently or why it only works sometimes.
– mike
Jan 11 at 10:00
• @mike dissolving helps create a less complex mesh. Look at how many extra vertices and faces you have compared to this answer. Unless you're planing to do something with those extra faces (e.g. animate) it just creates bad geometry for no good reason. Jan 11 at 10:20
• I didn't think of that Luciano, you're right. mqbaka mqbaka I take it back - the dissolve method you describe is better than what I had found. I remember when I was doing more complex shapes the dissolve was causing me problems but I guess that's another bridge to cross another day. This seems better for this specific issue. Thanks.
– mike
Jan 11 at 10:25