# [WIP]Bevel after Boolean

(Rodinkov Ilya) #662

Where am I joking?

(bkjernisted) #663

Rodinkov Ilya, how did you get the large bevel between the spheres. This is what I have. A mush smaller bevel.

(Rodinkov Ilya) #664

@bkjernisted
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)
@Fatesailor
Perhaps some kind of translation error. And we misunderstood each other.
I just wrote that I would record the video if necessary, but later.
@lacilaci86
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.

(Fatesailor) #665

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:

(Fatesailor) #666

And get back āsliceā please! It is a great feature!

(Rodinkov Ilya) #667

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.

(Rodinkov Ilya) #668

I had to rewrite part of the algorithm. It seems that now it works correctly:

(Fatesailor) #669

Andā¦ other then the so useful āsliceā 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!

(bkjernisted) #670

(Rodinkov Ilya) #671

In the coming days I will post.
At the moment I am still checking and fixing.

(Fatesailor) #672

Btw, detected a problem:

(Rodinkov Ilya) #673

Update:
Errors are possible.
Later I will try to fix them.
bab_v_0_2_0.py.zip (5.2 KB)

(Fatesailor) #674

Tested it a little bit. As it seems everything goes ok with this update. So let get back the āsliceā, the āmake pipeā 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.

(Rodinkov Ilya) #675

@Fatesailor

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 āChange subdivideā, āUse Materialsā, āChange Boolean Operationā ?

(Fatesailor) #676

To my opinion the add-on has to be a purely modeling toolā¦ so to my estimation the only option that can be removed is the āuse materialsā option. All the others should remain. Also, the āchange boolean operationā 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 āsliceā, the āmake pipeā and the ābevel loopsā 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).

(Rodinkov Ilya) #677

(lacilaci86) #678

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 selectionā¦ But I guess this might be a bit more difficult.

(Rodinkov Ilya) #679

This feature was in older versions.
There is even a video instruction

(Lsscpp) #680

Hi Ilya, Iām passively following this thread for sometime now, but didnā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

(Rodinkov Ilya) #681

He kind of wrote that he saw my code. But he has other priorities at the moment.