[WIP]Bevel after Boolean

add-ons

(Matt) #582

Wow, this is looking very cool!! I’m surprised how well it was working in the last video. :smiley:

Maybe it’s not necessary for super lowpoly objects,but I personally think it would/could be useful for sure.


(wujekwojtek) #583

Hi, can you tell me what i do wrong? with the script 0.1.2 was the same problem


(Fatesailor) #584

Did you watch my first video? Follow strictly the instructions there and you will not confront any problem. It is a little bit difficult to understand what exactly you do watching the gif you uploaded.

Btw, try using the 0.9 version. It is the most flawlessly working.


(wujekwojtek) #585

ok, i watched video and now it’s ok :nerd_face:


(uruburei) #586

You may be use Ctrl Alt (-) non destructive boolean. if you use Ctrl (-) you aplly boolean and this addon need non desctructive mesh.
You may need select a mesh to aply addon


(bkjernisted) #587

Two cylinder union.


(Rodinkov Ilya) #588

I will try in the coming days to lay out the basic functionality.


(Rodinkov Ilya) #589

Basic functionality:
Wire - Hide/Show Wire.
Сurve - pipe preview.
Stop Calculations - It allows you to change parameters without any calculation.
Operation - change operation (union, intersection, difference, slice - a little bit later)
Pipe radius - bevel offset
Pipe sides - number of pipe segments
Bevel Profile - Bevel Profile
Bevel Segments - Bevel Segments

(patch - intersection line)
Smooth patch - Smooth patch
Remove doubles - Remove doubles on patch
Subdivide patch - Subdivide patch

boolean_bevel_v_0_1_5.py.zip (3.7 KB)


(Fatesailor) #590

Tried it a little bit : it is far from giving the expected results. When we click the ‘bevel’ button of the add-on there appears a pipe on the boolean seam which is not turning to a smooth natural looking bevel by any means.

Having the options tab in two different places, also, is needless. The one that appears after the initiation of the process is enough (as it was in the previous versions).

But maybe the fault is mine, maybe I am not using it the proper way. There is a need for a short, at least, demonstration video. It is difficult to understand the functions in the options tab by a blind searching.


(Rodinkov Ilya) #591

Can you take a screenshot?


#592

This works great , except the transition is sharp not smooth where the bevel ends.


(Rodinkov Ilya) #593

At the moment I can’t create continuity bevel.
I can solve this with DataTransfer.
But it would be better to make it geometry too.


#594

I just switch to blender!, and this is amazing!, are you planing to update the script to 2.8? what a cool tool.


(Rodinkov Ilya) #595

I tried running the script on 2.8. If delete a couple of lines, it will work. But it is better to wait for the official API.


(Rodinkov Ilya) #596

@ramboblender

except the transition is sharp not smooth where the bevel ends.

Small test - Transfer Normal and tried to do something with geometry:
Before:


After:


(Fatesailor) #597

Here are two screenshots from the testing. The problems that appear are roughly those :

  1. When we click ‘bevel’ the first situation that appears is as this in the left image.

  2. Then, when we play with the options in the add-on’s tab, there appear situations as the one in the right image.

  3. It is very difficult -almost impossible- to achieve a smooth, good looking result despite trying many variations with the options.

  4. The transitions are sharp in the bevels. And the user has not in his disposition any choices to produce the bevel kind (soft or hard transitioned) he desires.

  5. The bevelling in boolean cases other than the ‘union’ case is almost impossible… the results are very bad.


(Rodinkov Ilya) #598

@Fatesailor
This is strange. I have everything working. Now I will record a video test.


(Fatesailor) #599

Very strange! Did you use the version you did upload? Or is it another, newer version?

The things that the video are showing are great but… they have nothing to do with what appears in my tests! It is very strange, indeed! :hushed:


(AFWS) #600

Possible different version. I don’t get very good results either. I noticed in the last version posted, I have all operator settings also in panel ,but in the video it only has operator button.


(Rodinkov Ilya) #601

@Fatesailor,@AFWS
This is a slightly newer version, but I did not change the basic parameters in it.
I’m testing. Maybe in a few hours I’ll post a newer version.