Bevel modifier needs to limit amount to max without overlap #34611

New Issue

Howard Trickey · 2013-03-12T14:13:59+01:00

Howard Trickey commented

2013-03-12 14:13:59 +01:00

%%%The sample blend has a bevel modifier with a large amount specified (1.7+), while the max possible amount before overlap occurs is about .0001. Need to add code to new bevel that will limit the amount to that which will not cause an overlap.

%%%

%%%The sample blend has a bevel modifier with a large amount specified (1.7+), while the max possible amount before overlap occurs is about .0001. Need to add code to new bevel that will limit the amount to that which will not cause an overlap. %%%

Howard Trickey commented

2013-03-12 14:13:59 +01:00

Changed status to: 'Open'

Howard Trickey commented

2013-03-13 15:10:05 +01:00

%%%Commit #55324 makes the bevel modifier limit the amount to the minimum half edge length for any edge involved in the bevel. A more accurate limiting function is much more involved, but this quick fix will do for now.
%%%

%%%Commit #55324 makes the bevel modifier limit the amount to the minimum half edge length for any edge involved in the bevel. A more accurate limiting function is much more involved, but this quick fix will do for now. %%%

Moolah Nasreddin commented

2013-03-29 03:48:06 +01:00

%%%Hi, Howard!
I think this change is good in some cases... in some cases it's not. I think it's a bit of a regression. When I need some larger bevel by the modifier - I can't get it (with Weight func.). It's "stuck" upon a safety. Just one place where an overlapping happens can limit the whole mesh and then bevels looks like "no-bevels" (too tiny) in some cases.
Can you turn back those options "Average", "Sharpest", "Largest" and (if it's not completely compatible with a new concept) add an option... something like "safe bevel" or "overlap check"... Just choosing between the new super-safe method and the old that gives more freedom for modelling purposes.
I know that this safety is good for processing derbies and fractions but it makes a regression for modelling.
Like a real example - beveling with a modifier is a great time saver when you do Hi -> Low bakes of solid models. And not only this.

Thank you for the attention!%%%

%%%Hi, Howard! I think this change is good in some cases... in some cases it's not. I think it's a bit of a regression. When I need some larger bevel by the modifier - I can't get it (with Weight func.). It's "stuck" upon a safety. Just one place where an overlapping happens can limit the whole mesh and then bevels looks like "no-bevels" (too tiny) in some cases. Can you turn back those options "Average", "Sharpest", "Largest" and (if it's not completely compatible with a new concept) add an option... something like "safe bevel" or "overlap check"... Just choosing between the new super-safe method and the old that gives more freedom for modelling purposes. I know that this safety is good for processing derbies and fractions but it makes a regression for modelling. Like a real example - beveling with a modifier is a great time saver when you do Hi -> Low bakes of solid models. And not only this. Thank you for the attention!%%%

Moolah Nasreddin commented

2013-03-29 15:07:36 +01:00

%%%Now I attach a real example (with pictures) how bad the new Bevel Modifier state is for the workflow.
It shows that it's a regression.
Sorry I don't know.. do I need to make a new report. So I decided to write here. Because it looks "by the theme".

The picture Bevel_Limiting_Example_Normal shows how it was on r54698 and Bevel_Limiting_Example_Bad shows whats wrong is with new revisions.
Because of this I get very thin bevels and doing normal map baking it gives nothing.

Please fix it, I want to use newer revisions but I can't. So I will not find any new bugs accidentally while using an old build.%%%

%%%Now I attach a real example (with pictures) how bad the new Bevel Modifier state is for the workflow. It shows that it's a regression. Sorry I don't know.. do I need to make a new report. So I decided to write here. Because it looks "by the theme". The picture Bevel_Limiting_Example_Normal shows how it was on r54698 and Bevel_Limiting_Example_Bad shows whats wrong is with new revisions. Because of this I get very thin bevels and doing normal map baking it gives nothing. Please fix it, I want to use newer revisions but I can't. So I will not find any new bugs accidentally while using an old build.%%%

Howard Trickey commented

2013-03-29 16:17:00 +01:00

%%%OK, I will add an option to ignore the overlap check. I know that sometimes the check is too conservative, but the correct check is pretty hard to program.

I regard this as a feature request, not a regression, as the old code had the limit check and you couldn't turn it off. And it turned out that there seem to be a lot of old models that depend on this behavior.
%%%

%%%OK, I will add an option to ignore the overlap check. I know that sometimes the check is too conservative, but the correct check is pretty hard to program. I regard this as a feature request, not a regression, as the old code had the limit check and you couldn't turn it off. And it turned out that there seem to be a lot of old models that depend on this behavior. %%%

Moolah Nasreddin commented

2013-03-29 17:10:19 +01:00

%%%Thank you!%%%