[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements
metalliandy
metalliandy666 at googlemail.com
Sat Nov 9 01:43:23 CET 2013
Hi Howard,
> 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?)
Ahh, I didnt mean that we add inset extrude capabilities to Bevel. I
meant that we should add the interactive 3d viewport control handles
that were in the Inset Extrude addon as they were super intuitive to use
and much better then using the tool properties.
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Extensions:2.6/Py/Scripts/Modeling/Inset-Extrude
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPes27n2pIk
Cheers,
-Andy
On 08/11/2013 23:24, Howard Trickey wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
>> <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 <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/20131109/907358e8/attachment.html>
More information about the Bf-modeling
mailing list