[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements
metalliandy
metalliandy666 at googlemail.com
Tue Dec 31 16:06:43 CET 2013
I would make it the same as the bevel tool for consistency tbh., so
offset would be fine.
I had a question about the percent option too if you would be so kind.
It seems to be very small all the time (in comparison to the other
options) and perhaps it would make more sense if it went from 0-100% vs 0-1?
-Andy
On 29/12/2013 15:26, Howard Trickey wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto: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
>>>> <mailto:Bf-modeling at blender.org>
>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-modeling mailing list
>>>> Bf-modeling at blender.org <mailto:Bf-modeling at blender.org>
>>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-modeling mailing list
>>> Bf-modeling at blender.org
>>> <mailto:Bf-modeling at blender.org>
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bf-modeling mailing list
>>> Bf-modeling at blender.org <mailto:Bf-modeling at blender.org>
>>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-modeling mailing list
>> Bf-modeling at blender.org <mailto:Bf-modeling at blender.org>
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bf-modeling mailing list
>> Bf-modeling at blender.org <mailto:Bf-modeling at blender.org>
>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-modeling mailing list
> Bf-modeling at blender.org <mailto:Bf-modeling at blender.org>
> http://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/20131231/4e18dc6c/attachment.html>
More information about the Bf-modeling
mailing list