Bevel Improvements

Hi all
What do u think about this

Now these edges(blue select) don’t have information about crease/weight when we use bevel

if this is done we can create more non-destructive meshes.

If this be asked before or it is in todo list already, sorry for the duplicated.

1 Like

Alright this is a repost from right-click-select:

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).

1 Like

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.

here is my improvment proposal …

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)


Would be nice if you could make rounded holes inside a mesh as well if you have made some openings. :slight_smile:

1 Like



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 …


I made a proposal on right click select a while ago :

I think it would be not that hard to implement and a really useful option for hard surface modelling.

1 Like

Rekov: your proposal is doable, but requires adding special case code to recognize this case and do what you propose. I’ve added it to my Bevel Improvements task (a wishlist of what I would like to or may do some day).

nokipaike: added your idea re rounded terminal edge to my Bevel Improvements task.

Frozen_Death_Knight and nokipaike: I can’t tell if the round hole in mesh is a specific proposal for Bevel (though you can bevel a vert into a round shape, no?) Feels like a more general wish for some kind of knife-project-a-common-shape tool.


thank you so much!

yes you are right, but I could not resist, I wanted to make some factors obvious, otherwise these insights would have remained only in my mind would have gone away …
I could move the comment to a new tread but I don’t know how to do this, or maybe I don’t have permission to do it :slight_smile:

@Howard_Trickey This may not be a big problem for most users, but I find it odd or a one off that when using the bevel tool on an edge or face it would start beveling once you move the mouse. If selecting a vertex/vertices and starting a bevel, you have to press "V’ for vertex only to start the bevel which adds an extra step that’s not exactly needed IMO.

Would it be possible to bevel vertices the same way like edges and faces when first starting the bevel tool without being required to press “V” first?


Sh4dowK4ge - If two selected vertices are connected by an edge, so that that edge is selected, how is Bevel supposed to know whether it is to bevel edges or vertices? Maybe you would like it tell be whether selection mode is vertex or edge? But that’s not the way other things work in Blender right now.

I am not too familiar with the way tools are activated but I think there is a way of stacking more than one related tool on the same tool icon; maybe that’s the solution here.

1 Like

In that case it should default to the selection mode like it does with edges and faces. Selecting a vertex and beveling should default to vertex only even if one or more vertices are selected. If you have to select two vertices to bevel an edge, wouldn’t it be easier and faster to just select an edge and bevel?

I guess I’m looking at it from a workflow point of view. Selecting a single vert or multiple vertices and beveling only the verts you want would be faster and a more efficient workflow.

1 Like

The fact that there are so many “smart bevel” operator scripts floating around on the internet indicates that there is a legitimate need for context sensitivity with regard to selection mode. That said, I’m perfectly content to keep using my own ‘smart bevel’ operator in lieu of any official solution, so if it never changes that’s probably alright too.

1 Like

That of the vertices not beveled becomes more boring when we select sporadic vertices and therefore not connected in segment and nothing seems to happen until we press V …

should be expected, that if only vertices are selected it means that only vertices must be beveled …

then there is also the case, that if we select segments and some solitary vertices, the bevel only works on the segments …
couldn’t they both be beveled? bevel segments for segments and bevel points for vertices …

doing so, in case we have mixed selections, and we only want to bevel points, we just press V

I’m not a UI designer, and in particular, not a Blender UI designer. It would be up to them to decide the right interaction model here.

But in my opinion, suggestions such as these have potential problem that things act very differently in what appear to be the same situation for users. For example: you are in vertex select mode, select two vertices that are not connected, and hit bevel. By suggestions here, the vertices should be beveled. Now you undo and select a third vertex that happens to be connected to the other two and now hit bevel – and instead of the vertices being beveled, edges are now beveled. By one suggestion here, we should still bevel the vertices instead of the edges because vertex selection mode is enabled. But that may undo the habits of many veteran Blender users who are by now used to the fact that selection mode doesn’t matter – it is what is selected that matters – and Blender has the feature (bug? strange thing? depends on your viewpoint) that whenever you select elements that complete a higher-level geometry feature then that higher level geometry feature is also selected, regardless of the current selection mode (so, select two adjacent vertices -> the edge is selected too; select four edges that surround a quad -> the quad is selected). The fact that you can be in more than one select mode at once further complicates this.


a Solution could be “a rigid way”:

In vertex mode, bevel the vertices.
In edge mode, bevel the edge.
In face mode, bevel faces. (even better in this case we can bevel boundary loop segments, because most of the time when we select faces to make bevel it is because we want bevel their border edge not intermediate segments …)

And if we are in a mixed mode, The segment bevel (most common) prevails …

In this way we don’t get confused , and if one starting bevel and doesn’t get the result he want, it understands that it’s not in the right mode, in coherence.
The V shortcut, in this cases, could work as switch between vertex and segments beveling, in case one knows that he is in the wrong sector but wants to get the result that interests him.

So, the cases of obtaining unwanted results should decrease drastically … because the most common is when we select and bevel vertices and nothing seems to happen.

1 Like


  • Having the relative dimensions of visible references, as happens with the other transformation tools, it is already possible by bult-in enter the numericallly the dimensions, but there is no visual feedback.
  • Have the snapping points activable.


reposted from GSOC thread

hello @Howard_Trickey,

the bevel and it’s relationship with seams on apply has always been “bumpy”. When the bevel is applied the new faces have a notched connection with other islands. This has been a bane of high poly bevel uv workflows forever. It can be mitigated with an additional segment but this also changes the form since the goal is to work with 1 segment or 3. These sort of disconnected notches happen all over the place. It’s not able to easily be exploited on a cube but with something more complex it happens.

This one is another example.

Is there any way to ease the notching with applying bevels on models that are uv’ed as we work? Because since they are so variable it affects the baking and thus the texturing. Love the work so far! 2019 is the year of the bevel!


@So3Datel @lsscpp @Hadriscus @Howard_Trickey
How about either of these? I like the right side more, I don’t like the look of the full slider below the split one. Using a drop-down here would also make room for the Constant Radius offset type I’m planning to add.