[Bf-modeling] inset options

[Jonathan Williamson]

>
> I don't usually touch the Offset controls but quite regularly toggle the
> boundary option. It can be very useful to quickly create equidistant edge
> loops for example.

Same here. I toggle Boundary all the time, but very seldom adjust the
Offset Even or Offset Relative.

Jonathan Williamson
http://cgcookie.com

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:29 AM, Howard Trickey <howard.trickey at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Well I've answered my own questions with a bit more searching and trying
> things out.
>
> It seems that 'offset relative' is useful if one is doing a lot of
> individual insets all at once, and the polygons you are insetting vary in
> size from large to small. You might like the thickness of the inset to
> scale down as the polygon scales down. I saw a discussion about making
> shells where this was true, for instance.
>
> And I do see that Boundary can make a useful difference when insetting a
> region, so now I see the point of that one.
>
> I do question the method used for 'offset relative', however. What it does
> now is multiply the thickness at each corner by the average length of the
> two adjacent sides. For rectangles this gives an even inset, but for
> polygons with differing lengths and angles at each corner, the result is
> that the inset shape does not match the shape of the original (that is,
> there is not a constant thickness between the original edges and the inset
> ones).  Is this desired and useful? I would have thought that most people
> would want and expect the 'even thickness' property. Maybe a better way to
> calculate the factor for offset relative would be to multiply the thickness
> by the average edge length of the whole polgyon? That would lead to an even
> offset. Or, even better, multiply by the ratio of the average edge length
> of the whole polygon to the max average edge length over all polygons in
> the selection? That way, the user-specified 'thickness' value would have an
> intuitive meaning (the inset thickness for the biggest polygon) whereas
> right now you have to specify a really small thickness if your polygon
> edges happen to have a large scale -- only the relative change in thickness
> makes any sense.
>
> Also, the current ability to specify 'offset relative' and 'offset even'
> independently of each other seems a bit strange. Don't people always want
> 'offset even'? (And thus, why have the option). With 'offset relative'
> being an added feature on top of that to get the 'polygon scale' scaling of
> the thickness, but remaining even?
>
> Marc: your question about UV interpolation for Depth. I think you mean
> this case: if you give a non-zero depth but a zero thickness, so that the
> effect of the inset is the same as extrude region, then the walls of the
> extrusion get mapped into zero-area rectangles (they appear to be lines) in
> the original UV map. And you'd like some non-zero area there to play with.
> Extrude has the same problem.  The issue here is that it is not clear what
> math to use to get this, because then the top face(s) will not get the
> ideal UV interpolation compared to the original UV map -- some kind of
> artificially made-up shrink factor has to be applied to those faces in the
> UV map in order to make room for the walls to have non-zero area.  What
> shrink factor should be used?
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:20 AM Marc Dion <marcdion1974 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Correction, I meant "Depth" when I said "Offset" in the previous post.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:19 AM, Marc Dion <marcdion1974 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> To me, those changes seem good.  I feel like they all produce the same
>>> results with only the slider value being at a different place depending on
>>> the choice made.  Those extra options seem like redundant clutter.
>>>
>>> ----
>>> In addition to the changes you mentioned, would you be willing to put
>>> some thought into adding UV interpolation for the Offset option?
>>>
>>> When using UV's/Inset, it's almost certain a person would like to see
>>> some area of the UV's assigned to any new geometry since not having UV
>>> space assigned to new faces does tend to cause baked textures to fail at
>>> what they do.  Same for texture painting.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:57 PM, metalliandy <
>>> metalliandy666 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey Howard,
>>>>
>>>> I don't usually touch the Offset controls but quite regularly toggle
>>>> the boundary option. It can be very useful to quickly create equidistant
>>>> edge loops for example.
>>>>
>>>> As a side note I think Edge Rail would benefit from being on by default
>>>> as having it off can cause some some subd smoothing issues and somewhat
>>>> messier geometry.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> -Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 27/08/2015 02:07, Howard Trickey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm working on a possible change to inset (optional corrections for
>>>> self intersections/crossings) and was wondering about several options in
>>>> the existing tool.
>>>>
>>>> Boundary - does anyone ever turn this off?
>>>> Offset Even - does anyone ever turn this off?
>>>> Offset Relative - does anyone ever turn this on?
>>>>
>>>> In particular, 'offset relative' makes the geometry of what happens
>>>> after self intersections much more complicated, so I was wondering if
>>>> anyone would miss these options if they were gone and if also acted like
>>>> just 'Offset Even' is on.  (And Boundary; I don't really care about
>>>> Boundary, but it does seem unlikely to me that people would turn that one
>>>> off.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-modeling mailing listBf-modeling at blender.orghttp://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-modeling
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Bf-modeling mailing list
>>>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20150827/9badd493/attachment.html>