[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements

Howard Trickey howard.trickey at gmail.com
Sun Dec 29 16:26:45 CET 2013 

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?



On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Howard Trickey <howard.trickey at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Howard Trickey <howard.trickey at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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:
>> Offset
>> Width
>> Height
>> Depth
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:43 PM, metalliandy <
>> metalliandy666 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  Hi Howard,
>>>
>>>
>>> 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?)
>>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Modeling/Inset-Extrude
>>>
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPes27n2pIk
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/11/2013 23:24, Howard Trickey wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>  For names of these different modes, how about these:
>>> Across Face -> Inset or Offset
>>> Across New Face -> Width
>>> Angle Bisector -> Depth
>>>
>>>  Would those make more sense to you Jonathan?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:14 PM, metalliandy <
>>> metalliandy666 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Yes! That's the one :)
>>>>
>>>> Cheers!
>>>>
>>>> -Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08/11/2013 21:27, Jonathan Williamson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Andy, are you thinking of Inset Extrude for the interactivity?
>>>>
>>>>  Jonathan Williamson
>>>> http://cgcookie.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 3:25 PM, metalliandy <
>>>> metalliandy666 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Hey guys,
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>> That being said current functionality should be retained of course as
>>>>> flexibility is the key to robust modelling tools. :)
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> For the naming I would use amount or percentage vs fraction too. I
>>>>> think they would make much more sense to artists in general.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> -Andy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08/11/2013 19:54, Jonathan Williamson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey Howard,
>>>>>
>>>>>  I think these options would be very valuable. I know that in my work
>>>>> I would generally prefer the *Along New Face *option. I also see the *Along
>>>>> the Bisector *option to be quite valuable for when you want to
>>>>> chamfer a specific amount.
>>>>>
>>>>>  As for naming, I think *Amount *is a better name. Offset to me means
>>>>> distance shifted from center. Whereas while beveling what I care about is
>>>>> the "amount of beveling".
>>>>>
>>>>>  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".
>>>>>
>>>>>  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.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Jonathan Williamson
>>>>> http://cgcookie.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Howard Trickey <
>>>>> howard.trickey at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have now triaged and about to attack the bevel bugs in tracker.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  E.g., see
>>>>>> https://projects.blender.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=34504&group_id=9&atid=498
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  A start of what will eventually become the developer documentation
>>>>>> for the bevel code is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Howardt/Bevel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Questions for this list:
>>>>>> - Is this a good idea?  Should I submit it?
>>>>>> - Are there better names for the methods?
>>>>>> - 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'.
>>>>>> - 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'.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  - Howard
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Bf-modeling mailing list
>>>>>> Bf-modeling at blender.org
>>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Bf-modeling mailing listBf-modeling at blender.orghttp://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Bf-modeling mailing list
>>>>> Bf-modeling at blender.org
>>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-modeling mailing listBf-modeling at blender.orghttp://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-modeling mailing list
>>>> Bf-modeling at blender.org
>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-modeling mailing listBf-modeling at blender.orghttp://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-modeling mailing list
>>> Bf-modeling at blender.org
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-modeling/attachments/20131229/382c3577/attachment.html>

More information about the Bf-modeling mailing list