Problem with bevel modifier #50994

Closed
opened 2017-03-18 17:17:19 +01:00 by item412 · 12 comments

System Information
win7 64

Blender Version
Broken: 2.78.4 3ceb68c

Short description of error

Clamp Overlap in Bevel Modifier affects all edges instead of only those that are too close

https://gyazo.com/fe66d973e80476fbf3c3f30558d7ca39

**System Information** win7 64 **Blender Version** Broken: 2.78.4 3ceb68c **Short description of error** Clamp Overlap in Bevel Modifier affects all edges instead of only those that are too close https://gyazo.com/fe66d973e80476fbf3c3f30558d7ca39
Author

Changed status to: 'Open'

Changed status to: 'Open'
Author

Added subscriber: @item412

Added subscriber: @item412

Added subscriber: @FloridaJo

Added subscriber: @FloridaJo

Can you be more specific and write the steps you are taking?
it's my understanding that clamp works on all edges that are being beveled,
not allowing them to have overlapping collisions, BUT allowing them to be beveled.

Can you be more specific and write the steps you are taking? it's my understanding that clamp works on all edges that are being beveled, not allowing them to have overlapping collisions, BUT allowing them to be beveled.
Member

Added subscriber: @Blendify

Added subscriber: @Blendify
Member

Please also add a blend-file.

Please also add a blend-file.
Author

Steps:
1.Create any mesh
2.Apply bevel modifier with clamp On
3.Move any edge close to another

If I understand wiki correctly, with "clamp overlap" weight of bevel should change only for edges that are close, not for entire mesh.

bevelmod.jpg

bevelmod.blend

Steps: 1.Create any mesh 2.Apply bevel modifier with clamp On 3.Move any edge close to another If I understand wiki correctly, with "clamp overlap" weight of bevel should change only for edges that are close, not for entire mesh. ![bevelmod.jpg](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F547717/bevelmod.jpg) [bevelmod.blend](https://archive.blender.org/developer/F547719/bevelmod.blend)

Should probably be merged with #50819

Should probably be merged with #50819

Added subscribers: @howardt, @Sergey

Added subscribers: @howardt, @Sergey
Howard Trickey was assigned by Sergey Sharybin 2017-05-29 16:27:59 +02:00

@howardt, afraid another one for you. Will leave it up to you to decide whether those all the same issues or not :)

@howardt, afraid another one for you. Will leave it up to you to decide whether those all the same issues or not :)
Member

Sorry, the behavior mentioned here in this bug (#50994) is the intended behavior. The clamp that is calculated is a GLOBAL clamp for the offset amount, calculated as the minimum amount that might cause overlap (approximately -- doing it exactly is hard, and a TODO). The reason for this is so that the bevel looks uniform when done -- that is, the widths all look about the same. In some artistic contexts, it could look strange to have some edges beveled a lot and some edges beveled a little (e.g., you might want all edges of a table beveled approximately the same).

One can (usually) get the effect you want by applying two bevel modifiers with different widths, applying two separate sets of edges.

I can understand that the opposite argument could hold: one could get the effect of uniform edges by simply noting where the clamp starts to take effect and use that as the amount. However this would break backward compatibility. In fact, as a bit of history: there didn't used to be a clamp option for bevel when we first made it work for 2.5, but it turned out there were existing models where the amount had been set very large and the artist relied on clamp to make the result uniform.

Since 2.8 is allowed to break backward compatibility, we could consider changing the behavior to the way you want for 2.8, but I would want to see some consensus from artists that this is desired.

For now I am closing this bug and putting your desire into the general tracking bug for desired bevel improvements, #48583.

Sorry, the behavior mentioned here in this bug (#50994) is the intended behavior. The clamp that is calculated is a GLOBAL clamp for the offset amount, calculated as the minimum amount that might cause overlap (approximately -- doing it exactly is hard, and a TODO). The reason for this is so that the bevel looks uniform when done -- that is, the widths all look about the same. In some artistic contexts, it could look strange to have some edges beveled a lot and some edges beveled a little (e.g., you might want all edges of a table beveled approximately the same). One can (usually) get the effect you want by applying two bevel modifiers with different widths, applying two separate sets of edges. I can understand that the opposite argument could hold: one could get the effect of uniform edges by simply noting where the clamp starts to take effect and use that as the amount. However this would break backward compatibility. In fact, as a bit of history: there didn't used to be a clamp option for bevel when we first made it work for 2.5, but it turned out there were existing models where the amount had been set very large and the artist relied on clamp to make the result uniform. Since 2.8 is allowed to break backward compatibility, we could consider changing the behavior to the way you want for 2.8, but I would want to see some consensus from artists that this is desired. For now I am closing this bug and putting your desire into the general tracking bug for desired bevel improvements, #48583.
Member

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Resolved'

Changed status from 'Open' to: 'Resolved'
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Label
Interest
Alembic
Interest
Animation & Rigging
Interest
Asset Browser
Interest
Asset Browser Project Overview
Interest
Audio
Interest
Automated Testing
Interest
Blender Asset Bundle
Interest
BlendFile
Interest
Collada
Interest
Compatibility
Interest
Compositing
Interest
Core
Interest
Cycles
Interest
Dependency Graph
Interest
Development Management
Interest
EEVEE
Interest
EEVEE & Viewport
Interest
Freestyle
Interest
Geometry Nodes
Interest
Grease Pencil
Interest
ID Management
Interest
Images & Movies
Interest
Import Export
Interest
Line Art
Interest
Masking
Interest
Metal
Interest
Modeling
Interest
Modifiers
Interest
Motion Tracking
Interest
Nodes & Physics
Interest
OpenGL
Interest
Overlay
Interest
Overrides
Interest
Performance
Interest
Physics
Interest
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Interest
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Interest
Python API
Interest
Render & Cycles
Interest
Render Pipeline
Interest
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Interest
Text Editor
Interest
Translations
Interest
Triaging
Interest
Undo
Interest
USD
Interest
User Interface
Interest
UV Editing
Interest
VFX & Video
Interest
Video Sequencer
Interest
Virtual Reality
Interest
Vulkan
Interest
Wayland
Interest
Workbench
Interest: X11
Legacy
Blender 2.8 Project
Legacy
Milestone 1: Basic, Local Asset Browser
Legacy
OpenGL Error
Meta
Good First Issue
Meta
Papercut
Meta
Retrospective
Meta
Security
Module
Animation & Rigging
Module
Core
Module
Development Management
Module
EEVEE & Viewport
Module
Grease Pencil
Module
Modeling
Module
Nodes & Physics
Module
Pipeline, Assets & IO
Module
Platforms, Builds & Tests
Module
Python API
Module
Render & Cycles
Module
Sculpt, Paint & Texture
Module
Triaging
Module
User Interface
Module
VFX & Video
Platform
FreeBSD
Platform
Linux
Platform
macOS
Platform
Windows
Priority
High
Priority
Low
Priority
Normal
Priority
Unbreak Now!
Status
Archived
Status
Confirmed
Status
Duplicate
Status
Needs Info from Developers
Status
Needs Information from User
Status
Needs Triage
Status
Resolved
Type
Bug
Type
Design
Type
Known Issue
Type
Patch
Type
Report
Type
To Do
No Milestone
No project
No Assignees
5 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format 'yyyy-mm-dd'.

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: blender/blender#50994
No description provided.