I would prefer that result.
But there you create a giant ngon in the middle of the bevel, thing you have 4 subdivisions for that bevel, what would you do?, I cannot draw now, tomorrow Iāll be in the pc again, Iāll check some ideas, but the current behavior is not good and I think a more proper pattern could be found, even one expecting some manual connections later (just as an option, not something mandatory)
Yes, thatās a good one, Iām sure a pattern similar to that could be extrapolated to be automatic, if course without the other cuts, but maybe the inner faces could be organized in that way
That is not solve the bevel with a correct topology. Itās extend the loops until infiniteā¦ So if we had a mesh with thousans of loops we must to extend all this for a bevel instead of have a closed bevel that only do a best topology?
If the improve in the topology is optional I donāt see any reason to donāt want it inside the bevel tool.
1 Like
i think u are asking for what maya does, it closes the bevel and tries to keep it tries/quads but youāll always end up with n-gons unless you bevel the whole geoā¦bevel will always need clean up.
To be 100% correct, yes, you need to clean the surface loops
But itās not necesary always a correct clean surface, but the actual blender output creates some subdivision problems.
With the clean end
With the actual end
With the alternative end
artifacts with SubD
1 Like
When you work correctly, you donāt use subsurf on this kind of result.
You build a correct wire lile I showed.
2 Likes
I never use a correct and perfect topology. I know work with correct topology but in my production times I donāt have time to redo the topology, with the maya solution Iām happy. Solve the main problems.
And if it is optional I donāt see why no implement.
Iām totally agree with this, I just said, this is not good and I can see people making tutorial showing this and showing wrong workflow.
Yes, that is possible.
the question is how hard to make it optional! because it seems two different sets of algorithmsā¦we may need another bevel type to achieve it.
I agre with you now @Wazou , itās not the perfect solution, but I also agree with @Alberto
It may not be the perfect solution, even there can be different patters to be picked so it generates different types of geometry that could be easier to clean or faster to work with.
Itās just that the correct solution just leaves it as is, and I though something along this lines could be helpful (as an option, yes)
Cheers.
P.S.: Sorry for disappearing, I had to go and I had not time until now to continue answering you, but Alberto did a great job 
I had an idea about bevel, with the option angle. itās a range of angles: from to
e.g first bevel: from 45Ā° to 60Ā°
second one from 60Ā° to 90Ā°ā¦
other idea
have the option angle in the F6 (now F9?) of ctrl+B because working directly in edit mode you donāt have access to this usefull option
About the angle suggestion:
I had not put the ālimit bevel to ā¦ā kinds of options in the bevel tool because I figured one can just select the desired edges and then bevel them. E.g, use the āSelect > Sharp Edgesā function (the Redo panel lets you adjust the angle threshold), then bevel. (And I know, this method wonāt work because sometimes two vertices are selected for different sharp edges and the edge in between is automatically selected even if it isnāt sharp, because of Blenderās selection flushing rules.) Or you can use the modify and then apply it.
I suppose I could add such things to the too. I have been trying to not go crazy with adding options to either the tool or the modifier, as this makes for a confusing, harder-to-learn tool.
The range of angles is for the limit (rather than just: above this angle) is interesting and not something Iāve heard people ask for before. It seems rather limited in usefulness, so again Iād hesitate to add more options for something that would not get a lot of use.
As far as I can see if the GSoC about bevel profiles will be a success that will mean one can easily set up a different angle for the bevel just by adjusting one end point of the profile curve.
1 Like
Hi! Just so anyone following this thread knows, I made a thread for discussing custom profiles in the GSoC section of the forum.
Maybe itās worth keeping this thread as a more general discussion, but it would be useful to have any profiles discussion over there. Thanks!
6 Likes
Hello, iām maybe late to the party, but why an auto-merge option for verteces that go out of the limit never came out ? did i miss something ?
in this gif below is the step manually, selecting edges that go too far, in red in my image up there and merge it to the limit, which is the green verticle
3 Likes
it is in my long-term roadmap to do what you want here. It is quite hard to find a general solution to this problem, which is why it isnāt solved yet.
1 Like