Bevel - Profile Values

Bevel’s “profile” slider use for me quite strange values. Is there for that reason?

Since profile can be convex and concave, seems to me more reasonable to use for mid point (straight profile) value “0” and for convex/concave max values 1/-1.

Like now I could understand to 1=convex max and 0.5=rounded if zero would be flat, but beveling can be also concave. It needs more brain calculations, where “mid point” (flat profile) is on 0.25 and round concave is 0.15 … and stops there (It means, it doesn’t create the same max range in concave shape).

From user side of view it’s quite time consuming to understand how it works.
In blender is more tools that I need to always study again how they works instead of to directly use them.
I’m getting older, so to remember all of these small things … you know :slight_smile:

Isn’t it more intuitive system (1 / 0 / -1) in this case?
(Alternatively 2 / 0 / -2 where 1/-1 is perfectly round profile and 2/-2 for sharp maximum.)
Thank you for your opinion.

OK, I take the blame for values. I can see your point. However at this point, I’m not sure it makes sense to change. People are used to the current values, they have models with them embedded in modifiers, and there are probably tutorials that mention the values.

The values come from the mathematical definition of the shapes. They were originally the r values for superellipses – see – but Jonathan Williamson suggested I divide by 4 to make the range go from 0 to 1, so I did that.

Eventually I intend to let the value go all the way down to zero, to get a totally flat concave profile. But the general code for profiles doesn’t work for that case, so I have to make some special case code that will work. On the TODO list (as is making the profile=1 case work more robustly, which will also take more special case code).

I think the current system is good to keep for legacy purposes however there could be an override - In ideal scenario you could define a CURVE that results in BEVEL and SOLIDIFY profile:

Does Blender even have any UI control that allows for Curve definition? If not then best next thing is 5-10 predefined curves in form of small image thumbnails.

Can anyone elaborate on this please.

That screenshot is from Modo is it? It is not Blender?

It’s Modo - true.

These curve presets look so cool. :slight_smile:
Howardt, I think you are aware of the glitch when profile nears 1 ? Is that what you were just mentioning ? Personally I can live with it, I was just making sure it stays in a corner of your mind. :stuck_out_tongue:

I never understood why people are so concerned about bevel values in a sub-d modeling app. I can understand it if this is Sketchup or any app that doesn’t have to subsurf the model. If I want proper profiles in a sub-d app, I’m going to have to do it manually like adding loops in proper places to tighten up sharp edges, for example.

That’s a colossal waste of time when you can select some edges, set a curve, and be done with it. Doing complex profiles in a sub-d app isn’t any different than doing them with any other modeling method.

Bevels with complex profiles are rare in modeling. It’s a colossal waste of time for devs to focus on such waste.

Or I might be missing something. Is Blender used for accurate modeling now? Be aware that Blender has about an accuracy of 2 decimal places. Autocad has 12 in comparison.

@Hadriscus: there are problems both when the profile value nears 1 and when it is exactly 1.

@cgstrive: probably the next big feature change I want to add to bevel is either a user-defined curve or more curve presets for the bevel profile. It may get tricky defining what the corner mesh looks like when more than two beveled edges meet at a vertex. And if one defines an asymmetric curve, how should the user specify which side of the edge is “up”? But I think these can be worked out.

However, there is a current backlog of bevel bugs and non-ideal results with the current Bevel, and I feel obligated to deal with those before moving on to a new feature like user-defined profiles.

@blenderDoodler. Profiles are amazing for both arch and hard surface with potential to save a lot of time. Take a look at Mike Nashes work (note the edges of panels):

He likely had had manual approach but it is possible to define such complexity with Profiles (Solidify (multi step extrusion) or/and Bevel) = extremely efficient.

@howardt - Thank You. I was playing with Source and tried to find out why Bevel spikes especially after Booleans. I followed the procedure and put some conditions in place ( dont quite remember ), however seems that the problem stems from there (if any help):

More robust beveling tools allow for the creation of complex shapes with no need for the subsurf modifier (because it’s less dependent on topology and the subsurf modifier will subdivide everything).

It has about as much use for artists as for architects, don’t tell me that Blender should only focus on features for organic models and ignore the needs for hard-surface modeling (the latter which even the Zbrush team is giving attention to).

@cgstrive: Thanks. Several of the open bugs are due to the pass that tries to even out bevel widths. I’m beginning to think this isn’t an important thing to do. I either need to improve it (so it doesn’t cause big changes – spikes), remove it, or make it an option. The easy thing to do would be to make it an option but I find that solution somewhat obnoxious and would rather not go there.

@@blendDoodler, you know really bad people are those who project their workflow onto what others only need.

I use profiles a lot and guess what for upholstery seam modeling but ok no body needs it. …

It’s just a little oversight on the part of a user that doesn’t ever use “method A” or “method B” and claims that no one else needs to use them either. Everyone is guilty of this from time to time, my self included. I don’t think that there was any offense intended by it.

Maya doesn’t have such feature? How about Rhino?


I was able to filet with the bevel modifier with vertices
but don’t remember this shown in the release note!

any rough idea when you will correct the bevel for these strange behavior on complicated topo ?

thanks for you feedback
happy bl

I let myself to post a proposal
What do you think about this?
If Bevel modifier will have a loops around the the bevel
default modifier
new modifier
Ofset loops - enable loops
Amount - Number of loops
Width - default =1.
wight change
tightly loops - automatic reduction of the number of loops if they do not have enough space
change bevel wight with enabled Ofset loops

sorry for my English

@RickyBlender: not sure what you are referring to with “strange behavior on complicated topo” – is there an existing bug report about what you are talking about?

@so3Datal: this is interesting – the doubling of the widths of successive offsets. Does this lead to better subdiv or something? Before doing something like this I’d want to know that other artists want and would use this.

I do some hard surface and usually the edges introduced by the bevel itself are enough to define and sharpen geometry at this point… if they are not, I just use a few loop cuts on either side of the bevel. so3Datel would like this to be available in the modifier to be used procedurally iiuc ?