[WIP]Bevel after Boolean

add-ons

(Matt) #521

I’m hoping this is still in development as well. Is very awesome! Someone was teasing something for 3ds max as well, but has gone silent. :sob:


(Fatesailor) #522

We are waiting a sign from Ilya… hope that he has not abandoned the thought to continue the development of the add-on! It is already a great add-on and it has a great potential to be much better. I am constantly trying to explore new ways with which someone can work with it. It is absorbing as a tool! :smiley:

Below a robo-drone made almost totally with the use of ‘bevel after boolean’:


(Matt) #523

Very cool! Are you using the latest version? 1.3 or something I think?


(Fatesailor) #524

Thanks! :smiley:

I am using the v. 0.9… I think it is the best between all versions!


(Matt) #525

This doesn’t really work on hard edge stuff right ? Like a default box ? Relax and that sfuff breaks it?

I tried to Boolean in a filleted box into a sphere. It works, but with relax, the hole turns more into a oval. If I turned off relax, the mesh blew up.

Would be cool to be able to do what I did. Unless you can, but just need denser geo.


(Fatesailor) #526

This tool works only with rounded edged objects. It is so by its nature. You can not apply bevelling to boolean-ed sharp edged objects. Of course the rounding amount of the edges may vary but it is necessary.

I have made two tutorial videos explaining its workings in detail, you can watch them:


(Matt) #527

Yeah, I tried it on more smooth / higher res Geo, and it worked better for sure!

I need to keep messing with it more.


(Jason_Chan) #528

in fact,your add-on is quite cool. If i could give you some advise,it is that there were many similar add-on or plug to do the fusion,but no one focus on the quad polygon and good topology! If there were plug to form regular good topology and maintain the curvature like the shrinkwrap modifier. I think that would be better. Good add-on


(Fatesailor) #529

Jason Kurama… tools that make such fusions are not so many as you say. There are still only two, in fact, that do such things: Mesh Fusion of Modo (which can not be considered a plugin anymore but a native tool of the whole app) and Hard Mesh. Achieving such fusions in a satisfactory degree (that’s to say having the opportunity to make filleting kinds of a wide variety, as to their thickness and form and in a multitude of boolean scenarios) is not an easy thing. So, the best thing to do is to have a good auto-retopo tool and retopologize the objects afterwards.

The most needed thing for ‘bevel after boolean’ is finding a way to produce filletings in a much more wide variety of cases. Ilya had some experimentations recently but as he said would not be able to answer for a while. Hope that we will see him again here! It would be a pity for such a plugin to remain abandoned!


(Rodinkov Ilya) #530

Fatesailor
Hope that we will see him again here! It would be a pity for such a plugin to remain abandoned!

I will try not to leave this plugin.


(Fatesailor) #531

Happy to hear this Ilya! :smiley: It is a very promising tool. I still am experimenting with it very often… it has a very significant potential to offer a whole unique modeling way by itself.

Mostly it is a matter of finding a way to overcome its present restrictions. Your most recent experimentations were very promising, hope that the solutions will be found! Whatever news you have inform us here, so that we may be able to give feedback.


(Matt) #532

Any more updates/progress on this? Or change to look more into it?

I’ve been using I think 0.9 Version, and is pretty good! Sometimes I’ve had to invert/flip the normals inside the boolean for some reason, or do some other fixups. But usually it’s pretty good so far!


(Rodinkov Ilya) #533

At the moment I can not think of a normal algorithm


(Fatesailor) #534

The fixing of the normals is not a so difficult thing. It can be managed in an easy way manually. The priority is to find a way to develop further the beveling abilities of the tool (to make it produce much more wide bevels for example).

Ilya what is going on with your latest experiments regarding the inset cuts? Did you find a way to achieve something with them?


(Rodinkov Ilya) #535

Under the normal algorithm, I meant the working algorithm.
Sorry for incorrect translation.


(Fatesailor) #536

Ilya I think that you can add, to the already existing add-on options a ‘cut’ button which will make an offset cut leaving also the seam curve (as is in some images that you did post some time before… I am putting the link below). This can be an option that the user can act, after the cut, manually… he can turn the curve to a poly line, bridge it with the cut loops and then make a bevel (maybe with some smoothing-ironing after the process). This can be a way of achieving much thicker bevels (and even in ‘difficult’ areas of a mesh).

The needed thing is to have automatized the right offset cut and the seam curve… then things can be managed -to some degree at least- manually. What do you thing about such a solution?


(Fatesailor) #537

Btw, a new finding as to the possible uses of the add-on… you make cuts from the loops of the boolean seams and then you give some thickness to the object using the ‘solidify’ modifier of Blender:


(Rodinkov Ilya) #538

Little progress. Works so far only with UNION.
Both Bevels are made automatically.
I’m not sure about stability.


(Rodinkov Ilya) #539

Do you mean manually making guides for the cut?


(Fatesailor) #540

Excellent progress Ilya! Even if it is only for the union operation! :smiley:

Now as to the possible solution I mentioned: yes I did mean just making the cuts with the add-on and then leaving the remaining work to the user. Because as far as I do see it is possible to make wide cuts (offsets) but it is difficult to automatize the whole process of producing bevels on so wide cuts.