Blender Bevel

Thanx Orinoco, that’s exactly what I figured out as an alternative, but is it an optimal solution in this particular case? It ain’t good to do four clicks, where you could get by with just one or two (as eye208’s post possibly suggests).

Lacking an in-depth knowledge, I can only guess that Blender cannot figure out what I want it to do - i.e. there is no face normals to use, at the edges of a flat mesh. Vertex normals in this case seem to be of no use.

Still hoping that someone will give a more precise explanation of this issue.


AAAAH! Blender bevel is murdering my mesh! :frowning: :frowning: Technically I could just subsurf my mesh, but polygon count is becoming a real issue and I would vastly prefer a proper bevel.


Yayyy! Some progress!

After at first not fully understanding my bugtracker request, Geoffrey Bantle has now replied…

It’s not something that can be described so easily as ‘modify
this line number and add this function call’. You have to have
a good understanding of Blender’s source code to begin with.
I am putting this on todo list with bevel, but there are bigger
issues that take precedence at the moment.

Hey - this nearly works…

Given a simple shape (like a cube with maybe a few faces extruded)
Use W-key Bevel, but do not drag out the edges.
Repeat the W-key bevel
Now kit W-key again and select “smooth”
After this, remove vertice doubles.

This work around nearly (but not quite) creates the topology for a bevel like what I would be after.

I can’t believe it.

Not a coder, though I’ve been analyzing ways that bevel could be improved for a while now through BugTracker. I’ve done what I could even posting example meshes of what bevel could / should be doing.

And now, months after several members (including the coder of the original bevel script) acknowledged that there was very much room for improvement in the bevel code, Bantle (the guy in charge of the newer code) just decides he doesn’t want to bother with the issue and closes it as a “feature request”… never mind that he’s earlier promised it was on his “to do” list.

Needless to say, I am very unhappy about this “resolution” which solves nothing.

Yeah, I know. Shut up and appreciate the beauty of this place.


I pretty much have to admit “you were right about Open Source” to the industry users I’m trying to get a job with (they, not using Blender are at least employed). After all said and done, looks like I’ll have to use pirated Maya in areas like this where Blender falls short.


I’m being a spoilsport - I know, just miffed about not getting my own way.



I totally support Lancer in his attempt to push development of good bevel feature ahead.
In my opinion Bevel operation is almost not usable. And this is one the the most important
features in modelling software, no questions !

I hope developers are listening.

I personally will be happy to participate in testing this feature


I completely agree with Ygs and Lancer on the need for a better bevel.

you fail at many levels buddy… you first said you work at a commercial company with professional Maya (or whatever software) colleagues… then you say you use pirated software? And now you come and bitch like a little kid about free software support? it seems to me you haven’t dealt with Maya or Maya support because of your way of using their software (hint: piracy).

let me tell you something about commercial software support, i got a macbook with intel GMA graphics card 9 months ago to discover that there was a bug with OpenGL in OSX… with this bug around, Blender or any other 3D software is simply unusable… here is a screenshot of Houdini after 20 seconds of just adding and modifying a cube:

i filed a bug report 8 months ago and they said it was a “duplicate” and they’re working on it… they released 3 major system updates and it’s still not fixed. In fact, they stopped manufacturing macbooks with intel graphics, if you look for the new macbooks on their websites, you won’t find any one with intel graphics…i spent ~$1300 for a machine that i haven’t used for 9 months. And this is not a feature request, it’s a goddamn bug that is stopping me from doing any work. this is just an example of how bad commercial support can be…

At least your “issue” is not a bug, it’s a feature request. frankly, I am mind-boggled by the amount of patience developers got for you… you don’t seem to be aware of any of the current development projects for Blender… they are redesigning the whole thing, whole new interface with new tools and new ways of interacting with the program…
so yes, i agree with the developers that your problem is not of a high priority as the new stuff would require a lot of testing and modification. until that mess is sorted out, you can use Wings or any other free software package to do the beveling.

enjoy your Autodesk products with your Maya “colleagues” Autodesk-fag…

Also, fuck you for wasting my time typing this reply…

I completely agree with Ygs, Lancer and Carrozza on the need for a better bevel.
And I’m a little bit annoyed about your post, dyf. You write about wasted time and 2/3 of your post is about “Macbook, OSX, OpenGL, Houdini, Wings, Intel Graphics and so on”.

I don’t understand why you see the request as some feature request?
And I don’t understand the same reaction by the developer.

The bevel is totaly buggy and not usable in most situations. Both solutions, the modifier and the “Bevel Center script”. And I only want some simple bevel, no rounded edges. But in every situation complexer than a box, the bevel will fail.
I have tried to fix it in the script, but my math is not good enought.

Maybe we should analyse the problem more clearly. With more screenshots and simple situations.

my reference to the macbooks was because he keeps dissing Blender for not being a free software with with support from outer space… it was about the opensource vs. commercial support that he was complaining about so it’s relevant.

i have no problem with requesting features or suggesting solutions, my reaction was towards his attitude towards the whole issue and the perspective he’s using to reason it.

Wow, that Houdini screen shot looks awfully familiar. I though it was crashing because it didn’t have enough memory. Ah well. Seems you’ve got some issues with commercial software support, don’t we all, but why take it out on Lancer?

Sometimes people don’t speak temperatly when they’re frustrated. That doesn’t make the frustration any less real. Can you help out here?

In context, I gave up my job as a teacher of eleven years to gain a diploma in 3D animation (it was a tough animation school with very high standards & performance expectations: they failed 1/4 of the class but thankfully I passed. Fees were about $10,000.00). There we learned Maya. Ironically, students were indeed unofficially expected to pirate from Autodesk. I was the only one (ever, apparently) to take a stand against that trend by using Blender at home and importing models into my reel as OBJs for work in Maya at school. I had stern warnings from various tutors that this approach was not recommended, but I thought I’d like to avoid the piracy route. Those “colleagues” are both the people I’m now trying to get a job with (e.g. be employed by their company) and also the forums of the same school, because entries to their speed modeling contests and the like can be “spotted” by professionals looking for new talent. For modeling, it is wireframes they are mainly looking at, hence why beveled edges and few triangles (if any) are so important.

I really didn’t want to say all that in detail before because it’s long winded and not constructive to the question about bevels. It could be even used as pesonality-jabbing by the kind of person who would mock my having a diploma in the first place.

…but perhaps now you see, dyf, my claims of working alongside professionals (or trying to) who are using other packages do indeded add up, as does my support for Blender.

You’d be correct there. After I wrote a recent entry to the bugtracker (basically a “nooo…” to the whole bevel issue being dropped) the current dev of that bevel explained to me that they are indeed rewriting the Mesh-Kernel, meaning that any scripts (possibly including all scripts currently implemented) would be needing a massive rewrite. For this reason he said, fixing the problems with Bevel would only be a temporary measure. Incidentally, he also recommended that I should indeed be comparing Blender to other packages as this can help with ideas for improving methods of various functions.

So no, I was not aware of those internal goings on, but at the same time, by closing the thread, it was like saying that the Bevel will not be looked at… ever.

My issue with the Bevel is not that I want a Maya clone. Heck no… I use Blender a lot more than I do Maya. It is that the bevel essentially does a bad job; specifically it adds triangles and cannot add two “side by side” edgeloops (changes and odd number of edges to an even number, which is destructive of the original edge and at times even the overall edgeflow.) Some users may disagree, but if their work were to be scrutinised by panels inspecting their edgeflow and the quad-quality of their mesh faces, how long before they would see the basic point?

I’d hate for there to be loads of eyecandy and complete rewrites added to Blender while all the time the basic bevel does not improve.

So I try to use blender in real world contexts, find there are problems, report back with the issues and now I’m a fag? I’m mind boggled there, but then, I didn’t make this thread as a mud slinging match.

…actually, when I started this thread, I had been asking for anyone who knew of a work around for the current bevel problems (point the way)… I guess the short answer is that nobody does.

Hey Conz3D… I have also tried to peek into the code. Some of the file uploads I put on the bugtracker (particularly the bevelIQ.blend file) were designed with that scrutiny approach in mind.