<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
I replied to this a few days ago but it got hung in the moderation
que so I thought I would post it again<br>
<br>
I would make it the same as the bevel tool for consistency tbh., so
offset would be fine.<br>
<br>
Is there a web portal for this list on the new site? I much prefer
to use those rather than email if possible :)<br>
<br>
-Andy<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 29/12/2013 15:26, Howard Trickey
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAEZbzg6d0Kb4CHYm+W+cKH0bJG2VmVqyzjO+k_agsyBwrGHOMQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">I want to put the option for how to measure bevel
width (the tool's 'Amount Type') into the modifier. Before I
do, I wondered what people think the default method should be?
The old method (and what is assumed by models with bevel
modifier in files pre 2.70) is the 'Offset' method. I can see
the argument for making the 'Width' method the default. Have
people here tried both extensively enough to have an opinion?
<div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Howard
Trickey <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:howard.trickey@gmail.com" target="_blank">howard.trickey@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">OK, revision 61221 has these changes. Let's
play with them some before putting them in the modifier,
since that will affect what is saved in .blend files.
<div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="HOEnZb">
<div class="h5">
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:36
AM, Howard Trickey <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:howard.trickey@gmail.com"
target="_blank">howard.trickey@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">If there are no opinions on my
suggestions for naming methods, I think I'm
going to go with them and commit the change.
Reminder: will change UI to say "Amount "
instead if "Offset", and have a dropdown type
with choices:
<div>
Offset</div>
<div>Width</div>
<div>Height</div>
<div>Depth</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think I will go with Offset as the
default, since that is what users are used to,
and existing models with modifiers will have
been using that method. Also checked Wings3D
just now and that's what it uses for its
(only) method. Respond now if you think we
should make 'Width' the default.</div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Nov 8, 2013
at 7:43 PM, metalliandy <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:metalliandy666@googlemail.com"
target="_blank">metalliandy666@googlemail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Howard,
<div><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">We can talk
about adding inset-extrude like
capabilities to Bevel later (I'm
not convinced this is the right
place for it -- why not in the
inset tool itself?) </blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Ahh, I didnt mean that we add inset
extrude capabilities to Bevel. I meant
that we should add the interactive 3d
viewport control handles that were in
the Inset Extrude addon as they were
super intuitive to use and much better
then using the tool properties.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Modeling/Inset-Extrude"
target="_blank">http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Modeling/Inset-Extrude</a><br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPes27n2pIk"
target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPes27n2pIk</a><br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
-Andy
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div>On 08/11/2013 23:24, Howard
Trickey wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">We can talk about
adding inset-extrude like
capabilities to Bevel later
(I'm not convinced this is the
right place for it -- why not
in the inset tool itself?)
For now I want to fix the
Bevel bugs and make it so that
people will stop saying "it's
just broken". So I want to
concentrate on base bevel
functionality first.
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>For names of these
different modes, how about
these:</div>
<div>Across Face -> Inset
or Offset</div>
<div>Across New Face ->
Width</div>
<div>Angle Bisector ->
Depth</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Would those make more
sense to you Jonathan?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On
Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM,
metalliandy <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:metalliandy666@googlemail.com"
target="_blank">metalliandy666@googlemail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Yes!
That's the one :)<br>
<br>
Cheers!<br>
<br>
-Andy
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div>On 08/11/2013
21:27, Jonathan
Williamson wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Andy,
are you thinking
of Inset Extrude
for the
interactivity? </div>
<div
class="gmail_extra"><br
clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Jonathan
Williamson
<div><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://cgcookie.com" target="_blank">http://cgcookie.com</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div
class="gmail_quote">On
Fri, Nov 8,
2013 at 3:25
PM,
metalliandy <span
dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:metalliandy666@googlemail.com"
target="_blank">metalliandy666@googlemail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0
0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div
text="#000000"
bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> Hey guys,<br>
<br>
I think the
main
requirement
for a decent
bevel is that
by default the
result would
be as even as
possible with
the same angle
& width
being obtained
wherever
possible. Hard
surface
modelling is
made much
harder by
inconsistent
bevel widths
so I would
vode for the
'Along New
Face' option
too.<br>
That being
said current
functionality
should be
retained of
course as
flexibility is
the key to
robust
modelling
tools. :)<br>
<br>
I would also
like the
interactive
control
handles in the
3d viewport
from the old
inset script
to make a
comeback and
be added to
the bevel (and
inset while we
are at it ;)
), though the
name of the
addon alludes
me atm.
Perhaps
Jonathan
remembers the
one I mean? If
not I will
find it out
later and post
it.<br>
<br>
For the naming
I would use
amount or
percentage vs
fraction too.
I think they
would make
much more
sense to
artists in
general. <br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
-Andy
<div>
<div><br>
<br>
<div>On
08/11/2013
19:54,
Jonathan
Williamson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">Hey
Howard,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think
these options
would be very
valuable. I
know that in
my work I
would
generally
prefer the <b>Along
New Face </b>option.
I also see the
<b>Along the
Bisector </b>option
to be quite
valuable for
when you want
to chamfer a
specific
amount. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As for
naming, I
think <b>Amount
</b>is a
better name.
Offset to me
means distance
shifted from
center.
Whereas while
beveling what
I care about
is the "amount
of beveling". </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Percentage
is consistent
with other
areas of
Blender I
believe, and
so I suggest
leaving that
as is. I don't
know of
anywhere that
uses
"Fraction".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As for
naming of the
methods, I'm
not sure. I
don't
particularly
like the
existing
naming, as it
doesn't
clearly
explain the
method to me.
But I cannot
currently
think of a
better
alternative.
If I think of
something I'll
let you know.</div>
</div>
<div
class="gmail_extra"><br
clear="all">
<div>
<div dir="ltr">Jonathan
Williamson
<div><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://cgcookie.com" target="_blank">http://cgcookie.com</a></div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div
class="gmail_quote">On
Fri, Nov 8,
2013 at 1:45
PM, Howard
Trickey <span
dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:howard.trickey@gmail.com"
target="_blank">howard.trickey@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote
class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0
0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px
#ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">I
have now
triaged and
about to
attack the
bevel bugs in
tracker.
<div><br>
<div>A number
of them are
really feature
requests, in
that they want
an algorithm
that does
something
different than
what the bevel
algorithm does
today (and
there are
reasons for
why it does
what it does
today). I'd
like to start
a discussion
of what bevel
should really
do -- where it
should change
what it does
today, and
where we
should just
add more
options.</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>E.g.,
see <a
moz-do-not-send="true">https://projects.blender.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=34504&group_id=9&atid=498</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A start
of what will
eventually
become the
developer
documentation
for the bevel
code is here:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a
moz-do-not-send="true">http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Howardt/Bevel</a><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This
start is about
how does one
measure the
'bevel amount'
(currently
called
'offset' in
the
interface).
Please read.
You can see
that there are
4
alternatives,
each with
something to
recommend
themselves. I
propose (and
have already
implemented,
but not
submitted)
giving all 4
options to the
user, with
'Along Face'
the default.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Questions
for this list:</div>
<div>- Is this
a good idea?
Should I
submit it?</div>
<div>- Are
there better
names for the
methods?</div>
<div>- Should
I change the
name 'offset'
in the
interface to
something else
('amount',
maybe?); it
would be kind
of annoying to
change the
code at this
point, since
the field
persisted in
.blends is
called
'offset'.</div>
<div>- Should
'Percentage'
perhaps be
'Fraction'? I
don't remember
what is common
in Blender, to
enter such
numbers as
between 0 and
100, or
between 0.0
and 1.0. One
problem with
leaving it as
Percentage is
that the
numbers are
way out of
range with the
numbers used
for the other
three methods,
and I probably
have to figure
out how to
scale the
interactive
number
differently
when
Percentage is
used. So I
would prefer
this to be
'Fraction'.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are
other
questions
about how to
deal with
problems when
all
constraints
can't be met
(when beveling
several edges
together); and
more about the
algorithm used
to fill in
rounded
corners; I'll
fill in the
discussion
about those
later.</div>
<span><font
color="#888888">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>- Howard</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</font></span></div>
<br>
_______________________________________________
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>