[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements

[metalliandy]

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
> 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/c052b8ea/attachment.html>