[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements

[Jonathan Williamson]

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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-modeling/attachments/20131108/70da64b7/attachment.html>