Hello! I really apreciated the new bevel tool in the latest blender releases. But i noticed som strange behaviors.
I would like to discuss if could be there a better way to do the bevel where many edges are connected to a single beveled vertex.
Here’s an example model.
and here is when it’s beveled.
I don’t like that when it’s beveled, appears many n-gons (where I higlighted) that create confusion and bad topology. In the following image I propose a behaivior that I would prefer.
Now I would like to know what method you prefer, and if the behavior I propose is tecnically possible. Is it possible to submit this request to the developers?
This happens whit a single segment bevel. But with multiple segments, the problems are these and more. So the bevel tool doesn’t seem to be completed.
Thankyou for attention.
I see your point, it would indeed be great if that were the behavior, but I think that in practice it comes down to adopting a different modeling technique…I’m not one of the developers but I’m not so sure it would be so straightforward to re-implement the bevel algorithm to achieve those results…but *if it were achievable with relative effort then I would be all about it
Part of the problem is how your topology/edge loops are set up. Bevel works good most of the time as long as you have clean topology.
This is what happens when I cleaned up your topology somewhat.
Agreed, you’re starting with some pretty poor topology, even the smooth chamfer tool in 3DS can’t handle that.
Sometimes you can’t have a perfect topology, or it is the best you can have in that situation! That’s not the point of this discussion! So save these comments for noobs that ask help about subsurf artifacts.
That’s quite a response to people that are trying to help you.
You should realize that exploring why your topology didn’t bevel nicely, while a simplified version does, is exactly how anyone would investigate how to improve it.
If you can’t get good topology, it’s often unlikely that bevel is going to wind up with flawless results either. It has to do the best it can in a given situation too. Who knows though, howardt might be able to make it work in that instance.
The bevel tool tends to work real nice for me as long as I have proper geometry that doesn’t create complex poles at intersections.
Generally, if you would alternatively dissolve all those planar faces into an Ngon, then the bevel tool will have no problem obtaining the right result. (in which doing this doesn’t matter so much if you’re not making an organic model or you don’t plan to rely a lot on quad-dependent UV methods)
I know that there are some instances where perfect topology isn’t all that possible, but any test file for HowardT to examine must show a clear example where improving it before beveling is not possible. (which for this model is apparently possible because of JSM’s image). However, it already shows that there is still room for a small amount of improvement as far as face creation is concerned (looking at those 3-poles mainly), so I can give you that.
In the following image I propose a behaivior that I would prefer.
This is basically what “Inset” will do, if you select the faces right.
Sometimes you can’t have a perfect topology, or it is the best you can have in that situation!
You can always do better than what you have here. Just performing one inset will give you a nice edge loop there which you could then also bevel.
But what can you tell me when I create game asset and I have to save poligons and produce as fast as you can? Whan you need to to fill areas with alt-F and you can’t take care of topology? In that cases you need a tool that makes a good job, and from some of the answer I understand that the result I propose is preferred by many people. So the problem is real and we can ask developers if the could fix it.
Edge rounding is actually based on the geometry simple or quite complicated.
Dont underestimate this.
Blender has some issues sometimes like in this image:
As you can see one outside concave rounding resulted in flat / linear edges.
But I want this edge rounding and not what Blender Bevel make:
So to get a good mesh you have to think smart and round edges in steps not at once to get the desired result.
I made a quick screen recording showing you the steps you can take to tackle this rather simple looking object.
NGONs are your friend here! You can see in the movie that I removed a lot of edges and added NGONS.
Works perfect then!
Here is a Blend file with the models:
And what about this situation? Is there a better topology without increase the polycount? Do you like the result?
…or is this better? (made by hand)
I suppose the second. So the discussion is what result you prefer, not what is the best topology for a good beveling.
I suppose you agree that if the bevel works well with bad topology is better.
zig-zag bevel error
1: create a cube,
2: inset opposite ends of the cube
3:bridge the 2 inset faces togeter
4: loop select the 2 bridge entrances (where the original inset faces were)
6: tada! (zig zag bevel)
quick fix: fix normals before beveling.
If it’s got bad topology it’ll shade like crap, especially if it’s lowpoly. Also, cutting down on polygons is often a waste of time these days. Most artists (and developers alike) have hardly any idea what is optimal polycount. There are situations where it’s faster to have several small polygons instead of one large one. Since there is no good general advice here, you shouldn’t optimize for lowpoly unless you know polycount is going to be a bottleneck.
Whan you need to to fill areas with alt-F and you can’t take care of topology? In that cases you need a tool that makes a good job, and from some of the answer I understand that the result I propose is preferred by many people. So the problem is real and we can ask developers if the could fix it.
Your problem is fixed by modeling differently. Use Inset!
For me this discussion is over. I don’t understand why people answer question that wasn’t asked and not the asked questions.
So instead of learning how to deal with the situation, you prefer to have the tools changed to fit your particular problem? And you complain about people offering solutions to your problem? Good luck with that attitude…
Hello Lell, i am sorry to say, but i think you are really missing the point here, from what i read it seems that they are really trying to explain and help you. but it seems you are stuck with the idea that the bevel tool should perform the way you desire no matter the topology, well i think that is unrealistic. Personally i think with the combination of b mesh the bevel tool is quit usefull except for the 8 iterations limit that is. the trick is to think like the bevel tool, get to know it, what it fancies and what it does not fancy, if you manage that i am sure you two can become best friends
But that’s the problem you’re not seeing, the result is entirely dependant on the topology. Maya even has the problem your whining about with its bevel.
Maya bevel, mesh triangulated first.
Maya bevel, mesh with ngons.
The image below is steps to achieve what you want.
- first convert top to ngons
- Bevel edges.
3.Then triangulate faces.
ummmm in the segment box you can type in more…and you get this…:evilgrin:
Mens sana in corpore sano. Yeah, sure…