[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements

[metalliandy]

I replied to this a few days ago but it got hung in the moderation que 
so I thought I would post it again

I would make it the same as the bevel tool for consistency tbh., so 
offset would be fine.

Is there a web portal for this list on the new site? I much prefer to 
use those rather than email if possible :)

-Andy
On 29/12/2013 15:26, Howard Trickey wrote:
> I want to put the option for how to measure bevel width (the tool's 
> 'Amount Type') into the modifier.  Before I do, I wondered what people 
> think the default method should be? The old method (and what is 
> assumed by models with bevel modifier in files pre 2.70) is the 
> 'Offset' method.  I can see the argument for making the 'Width' method 
> the default.  Have people here tried both extensively enough to have 
> an opinion?
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 7:34 AM, Howard Trickey 
> <howard.trickey at gmail.com <mailto:howard.trickey at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     OK, revision 61221 has these changes.  Let's play with them some
>     before putting them in the modifier, since that will affect what
>     is saved in .blend files.
>
>
>
>     On Sun, Nov 10, 2013 at 5:36 AM, Howard Trickey
>     <howard.trickey at gmail.com <mailto:howard.trickey at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         If there are no opinions on my suggestions for naming methods,
>         I think I'm going to go with them and commit the change.
>          Reminder: will change UI to say "Amount " instead if
>         "Offset", and have a dropdown type with choices:
>         Offset
>         Width
>         Height
>         Depth
>
>         I think I will go with Offset as the default, since that is
>         what users are used to, and existing models with modifiers
>         will have been using that method.  Also checked Wings3D just
>         now and that's what it uses for its (only) method.  Respond
>         now if you think we should make 'Width' the default.
>
>
>         On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 7:43 PM, metalliandy
>         <metalliandy666 at googlemail.com
>         <mailto:metalliandy666 at googlemail.com>> wrote:
>
>             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
>>>
>>>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-modeling/attachments/20140104/be496765/attachment.html>