[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements

Sat Nov 9 00:24:34 CET 2013

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>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
> > 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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20131108/3281ab41/attachment.html>