[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements

[Jonathan Williamson]

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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-modeling/attachments/20131108/f6045f2d/attachment.html>