Actually I have added something close to the adaptive sampling method pictured. For the custom profiles, although I didn’t make it quite as “adaptive” as you suggested.
If there are enough samples, give one point to each edge so each control point will have a sample
If there are enough remaining samples, give a common amount to either
A. All edges if “Sample Straight Edges” is enabled, or
B. Curved edges if it’s not enabled
Give the remainder of the samples to the most curved edges.
A truly “adaptive” sampling method would probably switch out steps 2 and 3 for spreading the remaining samples out by giving each edge a relative weight of its “curved-ness” and spreading out the samples based on that weight. If I have time I’m happy to try that because it sounds like an improvement over the method I’m using.
If I change the value of the vertex on the group, the bevel doesn’t take it into account.
And sometimes crashes blender directly if I play with the value and apply.
Right now, there is no way to make this kind of bevel.
Interesting idea, Wazou. If I understand it correctly, you propose that the vertex weight multiply the width spec at that end of beveled edge. So that one can get tapered bevels. Another way would be to have a “taper” parameter, but that has the problem that you don’t know which end is which (a similar problem to the “which end is up” we have for custom profiles in the GSoC project). Your idea solves that.
As you probably can tell, the current use of the vertex weight is only to be an “on/off” switch. If the value is < 0.5 then it is “off”. If we used your proposal without making it optional, it might break older models that use funny values for vertex weights. Though this seems unlikely to me.
There have been a couple of people on RCS asking for something like this, but this would be the most appropriate one I think:
Some kind of fall off system. This gif shows a widget being used for that, but I don’t know how we would seamlessly incorporate that into blender, as I don’t know modo at all, and am not sure at what step in the bevel process that the widget should show up. I suppose if we wanted to take that route it could be a tick box in the operator pop up box, and in the modifier. If ticked, then a widget appears.
Widget or not, I agree that I like the idea of having the bevel weights not being an “on/off” switch. If they correspond more to a 0-1 float range, then we could have excellent control. It might not be the speediest method in practice, but it sure would be flexible.
I would image in the future if we had a vertex group node, we could randomly assign bevel values to different vertices, and get some pretty wild results!
Actually, after thinking about it, I don’t like the widget idea, it reduces flexibility. With a widget like the one in the gif in the link, you can’t create bevel profiles that grow and shrink within the same bevel. It’s also fairly quick to go through the vertices manually and adjust the weight just like that.
I want to remind people (and myself!) that I have a design task where I’ve tried to gather all of the requested improvements / hard-to-fix bugs / feature requests:
We tend to get the same suggestions repeated and I myself have sometimes forgotten that they are already on that list. OK for this thread to try to raise my awareness of the importance of some of these suggestions, but we needn’t go over them in great detail again if they are already on the list.
Are there any plans to get this functionality incorporated sometime soon: https://developer.blender.org/D4328
Seems like it’d be incredibly useful for non-destructive modeling. I think it would be even better if the boolean modifier would output a new vertexgroup (for the new edges) that could then be used for the bevel modifier for even more precise control.
I see what you mean. The suggestion I were talking about was only tangentially related to the bevel modifier, so I think there might have been a bit of a misunderstanding. What I were asking for was for the boolean modifier to mark the border of the intersections it creates to be made part of a vertex group, so that this border could then picked up by a bevel (modifier) that is limited to only the intersection itself. So the bevel modifier wouldn’t need to make any new vertexgroups. This is similar to what the patch I linked to talks about (only this patch talks about giving the new border a bevel weight, instead of vertex group).
I’m not sure what you’d want to use a vertexgroup from all the bevelled edges for to be honest, but that seems like a completely separate thing from what I’m talking about.
I’m missing a feature in the bevel tool for constant radius instead of offset or width. I’m doing a lot of hard surface modelling and beveling is always a pain as soon as the angle isn’t 90/45° deg.
What I would like to see is an additional mode in the bevel tool with a constant radius. The radius of the bevel should always be the same, no matter how big the edge angle is. Since the amount of segments per degree would be different based of the initial edge angel before beveling an additional mode with a constant segments per 360° should be add as well.
In the image below you can see, from left to right, base model, result from the current bevel tool, and the wanted result with a constant radius bevel.
I’ve heard this request before but never with the "constant number of segments per degree of arc. That’s a good idea! Although it might be a bit more complicated for three way intersections. (Like most things with bevel).
I’ve run across an oddity with the specific case of Segments: 2, Profile: 1.0 at the intersection of two differently weighted bevels. Using Inner Miter, Sharp.
Basically, the current method pinches the bevel slightly at the corner along the edge with the wider bevel, when it doesn’t necessarily need to.
The other case is where you have two larger bevels intersecting with a smaller one. Again, currently the smaller bevel triumphs, and I think the result might be better with the larger one.
All that having been said, I don’t know if these changes would screw up some of the other cases, or are more likely to produce bad results in other cases. I’m proposing these changes because I think the resulting geometry yields better results after a subdivision surface modifier is applied.
The biggest potential downside I’ve seen with my proposed version is that if the smaller bevels are narrower than half the width of the larger bevel, you get a concave quad.
it would be very useful an option to round off the extreme vertexes to obtain circular profiles (or even custom profiles now that the custom bevel profiles is coming)
unfortunately … sometimes it is so disheartening when such simple and immediate operations in other software, on blender become complicated uncomfortable and inaccurate … yet by now we have the Active Tools mode, and already the addon devs adopt these techniques more suited to working in this mode … little would be enough, that piece by piece the main devs would start adding tools that work in object mode - point to point, like the cad applications, which together with the boolean operations would give a real sense to have the active tool …
The current active tools try to work as modal tools … while it is obvious that in edit mode, it is much more effective to work with modals …
but in object mode, the active tools that work like the cad apps, would be a real revolutionary explosion …
