Arguing that this couldn’t be part of the bevel modifier based on there not being face groups is not a definitive argument. It is already the case that the bevel modifier is not ideal because there aren’t edge groups – one can try to get by using vertex groups, but that is not ideal as sometimes undesired edges get picked by that rule, so people have to work around that using several bevel modifiers (and that doesn’t always work). One could do the same for faces (using vertex groups), with the same problems but at least somewhat usable. Or one could do other hacks like paying attention to face strength (a layer for normals) or material index or something.
The trickier issue is that inset exists and people are used to it being there, as a separate thing from bevel. Maybe we could just make the inset shortcut invoke bevel in ‘face bevel’ mode, but there is a whole separate modal workflow with the inset tool that might be hard or impossible to mix with the modal workflow for bevel. Or at the very least, make bevel an even more daunting set of options and capabilities. So the alternative would just be to add segments, profiles, custom profiles, normal hardening, etc., into the inset tool.
Agreed. I think this is more a modification to the inset tool. I’ve often wished I could add segments even to my flat insets, so it would be a nice addition.
But, there is a bevel weight that can be added to edges. Some way to mark faces for modifiers is badly needed in Blender. I feel like the “when everything nodes comes out…” excuse that I’m seeing pop up pretty regularly now is kicking the can down the road, but in this case, I don’t really see a reason for adding face selections and messing around with other mesh element marking until…everything nodes comes out.
I don’t understand your concern.
Here is a quick example of what a bevel modifier does in points/edges/polys. (see how it works when I switch to polygons mode)
The modifier is affecting everything there, but I can restrict it to points/edges/faces selection ofc.
And the bevel tool works exactly the same.
That is definitely a cool tool. Beveling verts and edges work the same as the C4D tool as is. Having what I see as seperate functionality based on years of working in other programs bundled into the same tool as bevel, doesn’t make sense to me, though.
I like the ability we have now of selecting a face, pressing ctrl+b and the edges are beveled. I like how easy it is to do this C4D style face beveling with the inset tool. All that would need to be added from an interaction perspective is scrolling the mouse wheel to add segments.
Until individual face selections become available to the modifiers (ala vertex groups) I don’t see a modifier version of inset (C4D face bevel) being useful. I don’t have to make spiky balls very often (maybe never). A spiky ball is all you will get without face groups.
I mainly saw the possibility of adding curvature to the inset and depth appealing. Being able to add multiple loops with a flat inset is something that I have deeply longed for in the past. And I don’t want to lose the way that beveling faces works now. Especially since it is common in non destructive workflows to make a vertex group containing all of the vertices on the perimeter of a single face.
Currently Blender doesn’t discern between all of the vertices in a face selected and the face itself being selected, so if faces were automatically extruded, then you would kill the current workflow.
To sum it up: You can make a tremendous number of modifications to the core of how blender operates and how long time users expect it to behave in order to make the bevel modifier and operator work like this, or you can add segment control to inset.
That would be turning the inset tool into a bevel tool. This is what makes no sense.
Face beveling is basically a missing feature in blender, and if this feature could be added someday, it’s in the bevel tool/modifier where it should be added, not anywhere else. The inset tool should remain as it is, simple and to the point.
I’ve been waiting for this feature for a long time, I hope it can be added.
Unfortunately this is the kind of stuff that makes blender so messy. Look at the extrude tools for example, how many they are? All of those types of extrude should be just one tool, like in other apps. I don’t know the reason why they are separate.
I certainly don’t want this type of thing happening with the bevel tool. The bevel tool needs to be as robust as possible but still be just one bevel tool. And up until now the bevel devs are doing a marvelous job. Hope they keep it that way.
It is always better to let control to user. A Merge modifier would be valuable for other cases than Bevel modifier.
It is probably possible to do that with most of addons for procedural modeling like animation nodes.
I don’t know if some modeling modifiers will be added in future 2.8 releases before merge of function nodes. But clearly, if only one modifier have to be created during this period, it is a Merge modifier.
The other devs have said several times that they are not opposed to the idea of adding edge groups to Blender. I imagine the same goes for face groups. It’s just a matter of someone prioritizing doing that.
The idea of a merge modifier has come up before. It would be easy to write. Besides bevel, though, what other modifiers leave things in a state where merge is a useful next step?
At least Simple Deform’s bend mode comes to my mind. If you use it to create a wheel, for example, there will be a seam because the start and the end can’t be merged.
Not to undermine your enthusiasm -I would like something like this, too - but it’s been discussed at length before and I believe Campbell (if I remember correctly ?) said something along the lines of “the modifier system is not designed for that kind of small operations since it creates an entire copy of the mesh for every modifier” (paraphrasing from memory). However recent changes to derivedmesh may have changed this. Not sure.
Non destructive modelling is the new day modelling, it is fun, efficient and gives users superior control over their mesh with ability to go back and tweak parameters easily, stress-less and always knowing you can go back to to previous parameters without needing to worry about applying modifiers until you are 100% sure with the design. If blender is not taking this path it will be left behind.
Currently we are in a very good spot and we can do a lot, but merge modifier is one of the key aspect of this workflow that is missing. I wouldn’t need to apply modifiers anymore and run remove douples (merge distance) I could simply add this modifier and keep editing my mesh parameters and having it perfect until it would be verified for final touch. I encourage you to learn how modifier modelling works and you can cut your daily modelling time by half…but we need merge modifier to complete this workflow.
I guess once more procedural workflows start to appear in blender all of this will be needed (edge groups, face groups, merge node etc) - i think jaques even did some documents about this topic.
But as always its hard to project future requirements …
I love the idea of unifying the various edge marking systems into edge groups (read: multiple seam sets and sharp sets, in addition to multiple bevel weight sets), but I can see why narrower implementations have stayed on the back burner.
Are you thinking of a merge modifer as a stand-alone modifer, or something in the vein of the Sculpt Branch remesh modifer’s boolean operations? It introduces the concept of sub-modifers in a nifty way.
It’s a neat way to incorperate secondary operations. It could also serve as a way to limit the scope of a merge sub-operator to the vertices affected by the main operator, without the user creating vertex groups.
