Where am I joking?
Rodinkov Ilya, how did you get the large bevel between the spheres. This is what I have. A mush smaller bevel.
At the moment, the algorithm works as follows:
A pipe is created.
If there is an intersection, then it is smoothed until the intersection disappears.
Consequently, the larger the intersection, the larger the smoothing.
Correspondingly, a large bevel cannot be created in a small area.
The solution is oddly enough - you need to reduce the size of the bevel (If initially it is very big)
Perhaps some kind of translation error. And we misunderstood each other.
I just wrote that I would record the video if necessary, but later.
I tried to port the add-on to 2.8 beta.
But for now. The boolean operation erases data from vertex groups.
Without vertex groups add-on will not function properly.
Yes, it is ok Ilya!
Now, below are two cases where the add-on does not give results. Give a look at them please:
Also, the thing that I wanted to say, regarding the bevel smoothness, is illustrated in the image below. The bevels inside the red ellipses do have a very cornered shape (and they produce a cavity somehow), it would be good to have some options for choosing the transition smoothness of the bevels. I do not how difficult is to achieve such a thing in programming but I am mentioning it just for your keeping it in mind:
Try changing Bevel Profile and Smooth Value.
Yes, I already know this error. It occurs because bridge edge loops command can get confused if there are more than two loops.
Very nice! Can we download the new, rewrited version?
And… other then the so useful ‘slice’ option, get back the pipe making option too please. Someone can achieve many interesting things with it also. It is a quite necessary tool. It would be good to have all those so nice features back!
That looks amazing! Can’t wait to download it. Thank you Rodinkov_Ilya.
In the coming days I will post.
At the moment I am still checking and fixing.
Errors are possible.
Later I will try to fix them.
bab_v_0_2_0.py.zip (5.2 KB)
Tested it a little bit. As it seems everything goes ok with this update. So let get back the ‘slice’, the ‘make pipe’ and also the part of the add-on that was working in edit mode (producing bevels by selecting edge loops), so that we may make a new instruction video.
Well, the basic algorithm seems to work more or less.
I will start to return functions, in parallel correcting errors.
I need to decide which functions to keep and which ones to remove. If anyone has any ideas on new features, please contact me. If possible, I will try to implement them.
Do I need to leave ‘Change subdivide’, ‘Use Materials’, ‘Change Boolean Operation’ ?
To my opinion the add-on has to be a purely modeling tool… so to my estimation the only option that can be removed is the ‘use materials’ option. All the others should remain. Also, the ‘change boolean operation’ is quite necessary. It is a huge help on changing the operation kind very fast and easily.
In fact the options tab of the most recent update is ok, nothing has to be changed there. The only needed thing is to get back the ‘slice’, the ‘make pipe’ and the ‘bevel loops’ in edit mode.
Now, as a new feature there can be a ready made primitives (assets) library for having the properly subdivided and rounded objects easily accessible from the user (as is in the Mesh Fusion of Modo).
I’ll think about it.
Keep it as simple as possible. Just a bevel button
It would be great if the algorithm could use selected edges and create bevel from that in edit mode. So in object mode it would use boolean modifier as it does now. And in edit mode it could actually bevel from selection… But I guess this might be a bit more difficult.
This feature was in older versions.
There is even a video instruction
Hi Ilya, I’m passively following this thread for sometime now, but didn’t have the chance/need to test your addon. Yet my curiosity is if this algorythms you are develeping could work non-destructively, as in the boolean modifier itself. Here (https://devtalk.blender.org/t/gsoc-2018-bevel-improvements/440/119) Howard Trickey is making enhancements to it, and is keen to take a look at your work too
He kind of wrote that he saw my code. But he has other priorities at the moment.