[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements
metalliandy
metalliandy666 at googlemail.com
Sun Jan 5 00:57:35 CET 2014
Yea, I understand your question, mate. :) I was saying that Offset would
be fine as it would match the regular bevel which is using offset as the
default.
Cheers,
-Andy
On 04/01/2014 23:35, Howard Trickey wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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 <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
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140104/3c7186a3/attachment.html>
More information about the Bf-modeling
mailing list