[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements

[Howard Trickey]

I was intending to make it consistent with the tool. The question was
whether the
tool (and the modifier) should change the default from Offset to Width.


On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:03 PM, metalliandy
<metalliandy666 at googlemail.com>wrote:

>  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>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
>> > 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> 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> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140104/458dac09/attachment.html>