fredaxc. Sorry, not with this update. It is possible, though the challenge is to figure out the mechanism for having the user pick, and Blender store, the vertex that gets spread out when you do a quadchamfer like that. I’m soliciting user input on my priority list on the devtalk thread, but not getting any feedback there, so I’ll repeat it here:
If I do do anything more on Bevel in the short term, my priority list is something like:
- Some tie-breaking rules for what happens to materials and UV seams when you have an odd number of segments.
- Maybe add “termination” pattern types for how to terminate a beveled edge when only that edge at the vertex is beveled. Currently it makes a little triangle into the adjacent face, usually. Other possibilities I could add are: (a) just stop (no triangle); (b) extend the triangle’s third point along an opposite edge until it hits another vertex;
- Maybe add another miter type, which I’d call “polar” and some people call “quad”, which only applies when three edges are beveled: the idea is to pick one of the three as a “pole”, and spread that vertex apart in an arc there, and then do a kind of latitude/longitude pattern with the equator at edge between the two non-poles. This is the pattern that MESHmachine uses. The big problem here is how to specify the pole. The problem is this: one has to be able to specify both a vertex and an edge at that vertex to be special. I could add a new vertex data layer especially for this (but this seems pretty heavyweight, and I’d need UI commands to edit that data layer); or I could say that it applies to all three-beveled-edge corners and pick the pole by whichever edge has the biggest bevel weight. This all seems kind of complicated and I wonder whether the new arc miter option (which would turn a 3-beveled-edge corner into a hexagonal pattern with arcs in each face) is sufficient? Also maybe the new harden normals options reduce the necessity for fine control over the miter patterns in general? Or maybe instead of a special polar pattern, I should just bite the bullet and figure out how to give users the “ultimate flexibility” that I described above: then you could pick exactly one vertex to have an arc and the effect would be like a “quad” corner.
Longer term, but probably after I work on Boolean, I’d like to work on these. These are quite a lot harder, which is why they aren’t on the short-term priority list.
- Letting bevel flow past existing edges (cutting away pieces of encroached faces) and avoid self-overlap.
- User-defined profile curves.
That’s my own personal priority order. I’m happy to take suggestions from users, especially on whether or not I should try to do items 2 and 3, because at the moment I’m thinking probably not (now, at least).