GSoC 2018 - Bevel Improvements

Oh, no problem at all! I completely understand and agree that booleans are much more important. Thank you!!!

Dheim,

I do want to eventually do a native implementation of Bevel-after-Boolean. However the biggest obstacle to that is a robust implementation of a Bevel that handles running into and over existing geometry with proper merging, etc. This is the biggest remaining Bevel todo. I want to get back to it, but first - booleans themselves.

14 Likes

I think bevel after boolean should be a function of the boolean operation. So every boolean modfier can have it’s own bevel radius.

10 Likes

That sounds amazing! I can’t wait to see what magic you make happen in booleans :blush:

2 Likes

Hi, I had an idea that I think could improve the bevel modifier, especially for hard surface modeling:

I’m a cabinetmaker and I tried to reproduce profiles with the beveltool on 3 concurrent edges (objet or edit mode give the same).
To make that in the real life, I used a spindle moulder. I could have used a router too, the result would have been the same.

1st profile (round edge):

The result is acceptable even it isn’t exactely like the reality.

2nd (chamfer):

You can see a chamfer on the vertex with the beveltool where you have a vertex on the piece of wood.
Normal, the spindle moulder works on 2D, the router too.

  • 3th (fillet):

For me, it’s the worst result, there a fillet on the vertex (with blender), where it’s impossible to have with a spindle moulder.

To respect the “real life”, there should be useful to have a “edge only” option (like the “vertex only” option) to not apply a bevel on the vertex of 3 concurrent edges.

28 Likes

Very interesting ideas!

6 Likes

Thank you so much for posting this. I do a bit of architectural modeling, it would be nice not to have the bevel modifier behave like a “real world tool” does. Actually now that you have mentioned this I can think of a lot of modeling, especially in CAD type design that could do with some of these principals.

I think there is a future for blender in commercial CAD, but when you are drawing plans or assembly drawings that a builder or other craftsman are going to follow they need to show exactly how you want things done.

1 Like

I think the easier way to achieve such result is to do the bevel first, and then have a function/method to convert that centerpiece into the joined faces of the 3-way fillet.

1 Like

Very good work. VERY Special thank for Outer\Inner Miter options. But do you can add this new bevel modifier in Blender 2.79, maybe as addon, like Bevel 2.0 ?

Is there a chance that this diff: https://developer.blender.org/D4328
Could get accepted before 2.80 release?

3 Likes

Afaik modifiers can’t be addons, they’re too much tied into Blender code to be just python injections

Just curious if Wazou’s suggestion is something that is getting added or considered, or maybe it already is and I haven’t noticed? I noticed talk of similar stuff related to corners but couldn’t tell if it was related enough to this specific case.

35cdd413e18783b80a62b32a4ed7b16aa015835a_2_505x500

13 Likes

@Howard_Trickey, I don’t remember if I already asked that, but, could it be possible to add a threshold for a merge on the bevel.
That will avoid this kind of unwanted result.

Maybe it could be more logical to have that on the Boolean modifier, I don’t know.

19 Likes

Hi @Howard_Trickey!

There is some bevel behavior what likely need to be fixed or changed.

What we have now:
BevelWierdness

What it likely should produce:
test%200

4 Likes

Oh, yea, one of things that i have to do manualy if i use bevel tool.
But what would be a general rule?

Is that a ending tip that howard talked about in hist prioroty list? (and was the last one)

I don’t know how it should work technically - something about angle spreading / limiting probably - I just pointing issue that may have solution or not :slightly_smiling_face:

The method right now when a single beveled edge terminates at a bunch of edges is to just make an ever-expanding polygon at that vertex, sliding each along the unbeveled edge. What you say it should be is just one of many other choices, where some of the unbeveled edges stick together and some don’t. How is one supposed to choose the best out of all of those large number of choices?

1 Like

Hi, it was bothering me since new miters were added. Bevel tool (in edit mode) has only 2 options for “inner miter”, but bevel modifier 3.

Bevel tool

bevel_tool

Bevel modifier

I was wondering did “patch” option got there by accident? because it seems it does the same thing as “arc” mitter and bevel tool doesn’t have it.

1 Like

I don’t understand very well the “not” in

…, it would be nice not to have the bevel modifier behave like a “real world tool” does.

I think the rendering should be as close as possible to reality, taking into account the tools to make the pieces.
Indeed, in my case, the details that can be show to a customer must match as much as possible to what will be manufactured.
So, for me, the beveltool isn’t realistic enough.

Off topic : I’m only a little Blender’s user that I do not master all the abilities. But when I draw a plan on DraftSight (AutoCAD like) with exact ribs and offset tool, with Blender, it’s more difficult. I remember the tutorial Modelling a 608 Bearing where it isn’t very easy to draw.
For instance, you have the scale tool but you have to calculate the ratio, and, for me, it will be simpler to give a exact offset distance than a ratio. Maybe a option “percent/mili-meter_or_inch”.

And I agree, it would be great if Blender had build-in CAD options or a add-on.

Sorry for my “translate.google” english. :wink:

1 Like