[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements

[metalliandy]

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
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-modeling/attachments/20131108/1093bc9f/attachment.html>