Answering some of the questions that have piled up in this thread.
Zuorion: you asked about disabling the inner arc for 2-beveled-edges and another unbeveled edge. I don’t know if we want to do that always. I do disable it if the angle between beveled edges is 180 degrees, which it almost is in your example. Maybe I should make the angle at which it is disabled anything close to 180 degrees.
Your example of bevel messing up when there are 7 segments beveling an in-plane T-pattern is a bug. Not sure if it is easy to fix as it depends on how subdivision is used to make that pattern. Thanks for pointing it out.
mx2: your manual fix to the arc outer miter pattern is interesting but hard for me to figure out how to make a rule to program it.
wevon: I see what you mean, and it is possible to do that “relaxing” of the sharp bevel. But how much to relax? I want to avoid adding so many parameters and options that the interface becomes a nightmare of complexity.
xdanic: You have probably seen that a “quad” chamfer (miter) option is something I’ve been considering on my TODO list; I will probably get to it eventually but trying to figure out where to put it in my priority list. A problem I need to solve is how to choose which boundary vertex to spread (only 1 of 3 gets spread in that pattern). I was trying to think of rules like "the one most aligned with a user-specfied axis – x, y, or z – but your picture gives me another idea: if it is an outer arc, chose the direction that is where the reflex angle is. This is similar to what the new Arc pattern on outer miters would give in this case (I know there is still a problem - as others have reported - in the attachment point of the unbeveled edges).
michaelknubben: in that polycount thread at the point you are linking to, it seems the problem is with profile=1 in some cases. The new topology options may avoid the problem but I should find and fix that problem too. And re your point about the UI for user profiles: I understand and agree that a UI for drawing curves instead of actual geometry would be better.
Alberto: you are pointing out the same problem that I was soliciting ideas for some posts above, where my special code for cube corners doesn’t apply with these new topologies. I am working, however, on better parameters for subdivision which will improve the curvature when the general subdivision method is used to make the vertex corners.
duarte.framos: I have so far avoided paying attention to curve objects and bevel. Interesting that someone was able to have the bevel code work with it with curves; I will try to find time to look into doing that.