<div dir="ltr"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="font-size:13px">I don't usually touch the Offset controls but quite regularly toggle the boundary option. It can be very useful to quickly create equidistant edge loops for example.</span></blockquote><div>Same here. I toggle Boundary all the time, but very seldom adjust the Offset Even or Offset Relative.</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Jonathan Williamson<div><a href="http://cgcookie.com" target="_blank">http://cgcookie.com</a></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Howard Trickey <span dir="ltr"><<a 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">Well I've answered my own questions with a bit more searching and trying things out.<div><br></div><div>It seems that 'offset relative' is useful if one is doing a lot of individual insets all at once, and the polygons you are insetting vary in size from large to small. You might like the thickness of the inset to scale down as the polygon scales down. I saw a discussion about making shells where this was true, for instance.</div><div><br></div><div>And I do see that Boundary can make a useful difference when insetting a region, so now I see the point of that one.</div><div><br></div><div>I do question the method used for 'offset relative', however. What it does now is multiply the thickness at each corner by the average length of the two adjacent sides. For rectangles this gives an even inset, but for polygons with differing lengths and angles at each corner, the result is that the inset shape does not match the shape of the original (that is, there is not a constant thickness between the original edges and the inset ones). Is this desired and useful? I would have thought that most people would want and expect the 'even thickness' property. Maybe a better way to calculate the factor for offset relative would be to multiply the thickness by the average edge length of the whole polgyon? That would lead to an even offset. Or, even better, multiply by the ratio of the average edge length of the whole polygon to the max average edge length over all polygons in the selection? That way, the user-specified 'thickness' value would have an intuitive meaning (the inset thickness for the biggest polygon) whereas right now you have to specify a really small thickness if your polygon edges happen to have a large scale -- only the relative change in thickness makes any sense.</div><div><br></div><div>Also, the current ability to specify 'offset relative' and 'offset even' independently of each other seems a bit strange. Don't people always want 'offset even'? (And thus, why have the option). With 'offset relative' being an added feature on top of that to get the 'polygon scale' scaling of the thickness, but remaining even?</div><div><br></div><div>Marc: your question about UV interpolation for Depth. I think you mean this case: if you give a non-zero depth but a zero thickness, so that the effect of the inset is the same as extrude region, then the walls of the extrusion get mapped into zero-area rectangles (they appear to be lines) in the original UV map. And you'd like some non-zero area there to play with. Extrude has the same problem. The issue here is that it is not clear what math to use to get this, because then the top face(s) will not get the ideal UV interpolation compared to the original UV map -- some kind of artificially made-up shrink factor has to be applied to those faces in the UV map in order to make room for the walls to have non-zero area. What shrink factor should be used?</div><div><div class="h5"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:20 AM Marc Dion <<a href="mailto:marcdion1974@gmail.com" target="_blank">marcdion1974@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Correction, I meant "Depth" when I said "Offset" in the previous post. <br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Marc Dion <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:marcdion1974@gmail.com" target="_blank">marcdion1974@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"><div>To me, those changes seem good. I feel like they all produce the same results with only the slider value being at a different place depending on the choice made. Those extra options seem like redundant clutter.<br><br></div>----<br>In addition to the changes you mentioned, would you be willing to put some thought into adding UV interpolation for the Offset option? <br><br>When using UV's/Inset, it's almost certain a person would like to see some area of the UV's assigned to any new geometry since not having UV space assigned to new faces does tend to cause baked textures to fail at what they do. Same for texture painting. <br><br><br></div><div><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:57 PM, metalliandy <span dir="ltr"><<a 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 bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hey Howard,<br>
<br>
I don't usually touch the Offset controls but quite regularly toggle
the boundary option. It can be very useful to quickly create
equidistant edge loops for example.<br>
<br>
As a side note I think Edge Rail would benefit from being on by
default as having it off can cause some some subd smoothing issues
and somewhat messier geometry.<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
-Andy<div><div><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 27/08/2015 02:07, Howard Trickey
wrote:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div>
<div dir="ltr">I'm working on a possible change to inset (optional
corrections for self intersections/crossings) and was wondering
about several options in the existing tool.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Boundary - does anyone ever turn this off?</div>
<div>Offset Even - does anyone ever turn this off?</div>
<div>Offset Relative - does anyone ever turn this on?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In particular, 'offset relative' makes the geometry of what
happens after self intersections much more complicated, so I
was wondering if anyone would miss these options if they were
gone and if also acted like just 'Offset Even' is on. (And
Boundary; I don't really care about Boundary, but it does seem
unlikely to me that people would turn that one off.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><pre>_______________________________________________
Bf-modeling mailing list
<a href="mailto:Bf-modeling@blender.org" target="_blank">Bf-modeling@blender.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-modeling mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-modeling@blender.org" target="_blank">Bf-modeling@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-modeling mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-modeling@blender.org" target="_blank">Bf-modeling@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div></div></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-modeling mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-modeling@blender.org">Bf-modeling@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>