I don’t see a discussion here yet for the WIP bevel node, so thought it would be useful to have it, similar to the exact boolean discussion. Tagging @Howard_Trickey and @weasel, the contributors of the code
bcon 23 talk:
Task:
I am particularly excited about this node, as from what I understand, it will also be able to give a proper offset in Blender taking care of the offset vertices interesections, which if often used in architecture.
I had been busy fixing bugs in other Blender code I am responsible for, as well as in my day job, so there has been no progress on this for a couple months. But just started working on it again yesterday (a messy merge with main – so many things change quickly in Blender code these days!). It is not usable at the moment, so there is not a lot to discuss yet.
I’m really really looking forward to this. I haven’t been this excited for a Blender feature in a while.
If it can also handle text objects properly, it will help make Blender a real motion graphics powerhouse.
@Howard_Trickey I am a longtime user of the original Alias wavefront software, originally developed for the complex surfacing requirements of the automotive industry. Alias has the best NURBS based “fillet” tools in the industry. It would be worth studying the many options they have, and think about the principles that make the various options the proper solution given the surrounding surfaces, and or the desired result. There are many engineering requirements that must pass requirements for milling/machining, etc. I know wheels often have an angled segment that looks like a simple bevel, except it adheres to a specified angle, then adds a round to one side.
Curvature is a big deal in the automotive space, and many surfacing experts do choose to use a NURBS pipe to offset the theoretical edge, and build the blend between them manually to get the best results. This makes me think that you may want to give the user the option to use the pipe method, vs the other you mentioned. The fillet tools in Alias allow the offset to be established by two paradigms:
*Chordal - which establishes an offset the theoretical with a set offset; making it a parallel result to the original intersecting edges where the bevel or fillet originates from.
Tangent Length - Makes the edges fluctuate in width, based on the input angle of the surfaces, to achieve the desired curvature condition. When looking at the results, it may almost appear to be a variable fillet, when in reality, it is the maintaining the same size radius, but the curvature extends where necessary based on input angle geometry.
Tangent length may be part of the solution you are looking for in regards to better curvature execution in the bevel modifier. That said, truly flat surfaces don’t really transition into perfect curvature as you might hope they would. The shading can be made acceptable, but the math is never really absolutely as it should be, and not as seamless as when calculating curvature on crowned, (in at least two directions), input surfaces or surrounding geometry.
In Alias, as well as any other advanced CAD system, users are trained to Apply fillets or bevels from largest first, to smallest last. I usually try to maintain that approach in blender, but the lack of being able to specify the edges as desired, (vs vertex groups), at times results in either extra steps in multiple bevel modifiers, or else trying to make it do too much at one time to get it to all work together,
I feel like this last point may account for you trying to fix many issues that are in fact workflow issues, rather than problems that necessarily can or should be solved. (I watched your bcon presentation, which accounts for the details I have included in this comment,)
I truly look forward to seeing the new bevel tools in use. I do hope that there will be a v2 modifier as well, since in many cases, I do not want to have to setup an entire node tree for simple modeling tasks. I often see nodes as more compelling for complex animated, changing geometry; that was not even possible before the node based geometry existed. For much of my workflow, I want to be physically working with the geometry as I am creating it, not relying on constant temporary node output results to check if the results are as intended.
Thanks for this detailed information, @mcolinp. I will look at the Tangent Length idea. It may be someone difficult to apply in a polyhedral setting (as opposed to NURBS, where the surfaces have mathematical curvature. But I will see if I’m inspired by some of those ideas.
The problem of current bevel being hard to use because of the limitations of using vertex groups should go away with the bevel v2 node. Maybe there will be away to accommodate this in a modifer too but I am not certain at this point.
Hi Howard! Thanks for the fantastic work you are making with the bevel! Like others already said, it will help propel Blender’s usage for mograph users.
I was just wondering… given that 4.0 will be a “compatibility breaking” release, is the new bevel aimed to be included in that release?
I’m sorry, I can’t predict for sure that it will be ready by then but it is certainly a good target to aim for!