@Howard_Trickey I saw mention of possible Bevel improvements in the GSOC, but oddly I saw that user profiles would ‘need a UI widget’. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this perfect:
That’s the Hook Modifier, which seems to succesfully use a Curve UI widget (as in brush settings etc) to drive the falloff.
edit: here are the ideas, for those interested: https://wiki.blender.org/wiki/GSoC/Ideas_Suggestions
Would it be possible to keep the seams, sharp and crease edges in the middle of the bevel? Odd amount of edges would use the middle loop, because there is an actual middle loop. With even amount of loops, it could probably have a toggle for loop 1 and loop 2.
michaelknubben: yes, some adaptation of that widget was indeed what I was thinking of.
ArmandoTello: what you ask for would be possible, and reasonable. It’s just lower priority for me right now to address things like this, sorry. I want to concentrate on making Booleans better for a while. Maybe another volunteer dev, or a GSoC student, can continue to add some of the ideas like this. I am certainly happy to collaborate with anyone who so wishes.
If there plan is for you to work on booleans for awhile (and I assume take a break from bevels) then I’d like to thank you, again, for all of the work you put into bevels. I know you have a to-do list still for them but they’re in pretty nice shape right now thanks to your hard work.
It also gives me hope that maybe your intimate knowledge of bevels would lend itself to you considering a native implementation of what is being done in this thread: https://blenderartists.org/t/wip-bevel-after-boolean/693072/803
Either way I can’t wait to see what further improvements you add to the two most common things I use in modeling - bevels and booleans!
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.
I think bevel after boolean should be a function of the boolean operation. So every boolean modfier can have it’s own bevel radius.
That sounds amazing! I can’t wait to see what magic you make happen in booleans 
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.
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.
Very interesting ideas!
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.
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.
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?
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.
@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.
Hi @Howard_Trickey!
There is some bevel behavior what likely need to be fixed or changed.
What we have now:
What it likely should produce:
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)
