[Bf-modeling] Bevel requirements
metalliandy
metalliandy666 at googlemail.com
Sun Jan 5 01:26:48 CET 2014
Yea, I don't have a problem with it. I use offset for 99% of the bevels
I do so no problems there.
:)
-Andy
On 05/01/2014 00:22, Howard Trickey wrote:
> But do you like the regular bevel using offset as the default? That is
> the question.
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 4, 2014 at 6:57 PM, metalliandy
> <metalliandy666 at googlemail.com <mailto:metalliandy666 at googlemail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> 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 <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/20140105/063c2821/attachment.html>
More information about the Bf-modeling
mailing list