Thu, Jan 18
This is a valid problem, but one that the current algorithm for handling profile=1 is not capable of solving. I need a new algorithm for that case, or more special cases. This is already a TODO on the general Bevel Improvements task, T48583, so I am closing this instance of the problem.
Several more bugs reports have also been about the behavior with profile=1.0. As mentioned above, this is difficult to fix in general but likely I should work on some more special cases. I'm going to close the bugs T51010 and T53783 as they are grouped under this general TODO.
I can see a distortion/curvature where those 5 edges meet (I upped the width and segments for demonstration purposes).
Not knowing the internals of the bevel-code, I'll kindly ask @Howard Trickey (howardt) to have a look here...
Wed, Jan 17
Just submitted a patch to fix this. Seems that the bend modifier no longer needs to be based on X axis by default (as it was in earlier versions).
The default should have been automatically set (Z) if your version is older than 2.79.1. The default for bend mode is a special case though, where it was originally based on X. I wrote that code a few days ago. I'll take a look
Mon, Jan 15
Yes. Before this ability to choose the axis, used axis is Z one in 2.79.
So, in order to assure compatibility with older files, axis should automatically change to Z or Z should be used as default one instead of X.
Sun, Jan 14
Tue, Jan 9
- Remove comments
- Fix locking, more compact UI, use inline functions to remap
Sun, Jan 7
Thanks for the updates, looks good - will apply today.
Here is proposal for bevel options for corners:
Sat, Jan 6
- pad and pad2 have been removed.
- idx has been deprecated in favor of mapping/remapping before/after calling the callback
- dcut has been reintroduced for bend mode.
Sure I can do the reordering before and after the simpleDeform_callback gets called; sounds like a good idea.
Am not sure about using idx for every index access, I think it makes the code needlessly complicated.
Fri, Jan 5
All requested changes have been made.
Thu, Jan 4
This is not only a problem of the curve or boolean modifiers specifically.
(It could also be a bend with a decimate afterwards e.g)
So afaik this is due to a constructive/generating modifier after a deforming modifier
Sat, Dec 23
Dec 18 2017
Dec 6 2017
Applied already - rBe6404274a1eb0ed5f50445f5c7840720a03713fa - depth also needs skip save.
@Matt Hoecker (blazer003) After talks on IRC with developers, the Collision was UI disabled for a reason, as it would produce undesirable effects with some scenes. Modifier tools will skip them for now.
Yep, built this in macOS and works there too.
Dec 4 2017
Nov 28 2017
This was my conclusion as we’ll. There would not seem to be an apparent reason that the collision modifier would not be like other physics modifiers and have the same UI design, with the enable/disable icon. There have been some times I’ve wanted to disable it, but instead had to remove and reapply it in the physics panel (luckily it retains its settings.) I’m sure that there is a reason, there always is.
I can confirm the issue. From a standpoint of the add-on it just loops through the modifiers and flips a property. However it can be frustrating for sure.
Nevertheless, I'm not sure why Collision not available in the UI in the template_modifier or it is not exposed in the Physics panel when calling physics_add?
Nov 27 2017
Just dummy objects. That's what I thought you meant by "alternatively, delete hidden objects. "
Nov 26 2017
Played at about 5 fps,
then deleted Dummy Hair and Dummy Clothing, no difference in playback.
That was with 2.79
Nov 24 2017
Nov 12 2017
I don't have rights to merge task. So, I closed it and you just have to subscribe to previous report to be kept informed of treatment of the issue.
You are correct, should I close this one or do I merge it somehow? (first time posting a bug)
It looks like a duplicate of T51010
Nov 9 2017
Nov 5 2017
Oct 31 2017
More than a week without reply. Due to the policy of the tracker archiving for until required info/data are provided.
It looks like array modifier is not using name but index of vertex group.
Oct 30 2017
Oct 27 2017
Thanks, I'm aware of that, the diversity itself is achievable quite easily. The goal was in interpolation of that diversity (like "clumping" in hair) and at moment that takes considerable amounts of magic, that instance modifier being compatible with skin modifier would alleviate in some cases. Sure, it may not be worth the time investment if the PS system will be rebuilt, but it's out of my competence to judge.
You can use Particle Instance with hair. But workflow is strict and ask an object oriented to its Y axis.
Then, you can use several objects and PS to add diversity into shapes.