[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements
metalliandy
metalliandy666 at googlemail.com
Sun Jan 5 00:01:47 CET 2014
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
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-modeling/attachments/20140104/ea2d3b45/attachment.html>
More information about the Bf-modeling
mailing list