Bevel: Arc mitering needs an option to either follow the curvature of the arc or the outer edges.
Sometimes I don't want the arc mitering to follow the arc as the edges spacing becomes uneven which leads to inconsistent shading.
I'm showing Maya's bevel here as how the spacing remains even and doesn't try to compensate for the curvature.
And to be honest arc outer mitering should be the default as I use it 99% of the time unless I'm the only one.
6 Comments
+1 for adding an Arc Mitering option to choose between following the arc curvature or following the outer edges.
Following curvature often produces uneven spacing and shading artifacts. An outer-edge-based arc miter (similar to Maya) keeps spacing consistent and is much more useful for hard-surface workflows.
This is the behavior I use almost all the time, so having it as an option (or even a default) would be a big improvement.
Any chance of this being added to the 3.3 release?
the problem with the miter being constrained by the adjacent edge is that it causes some pinching/deformation along the arc at the corner. honestly a better solution would be to bring the control edge along for the ride, best of both worlds.
also: I agree with making outer miter Arc by default, I don't know anyone who regularly uses Sharp on outer miters.
I think, this should be with option as on proposal and by old style. Eg. "connected points" as edges/verts or "not connected". On some cases or style is with sense, then just verts that connecting edge can be moved by outside the beveld area.
The issue with sliding the control edge is that it will distort more edges on complex models than just leaving it.
This example is a simple object, but what if there were more faces + edges connected to the control edges that spanned a whole model (e.g. what if this was a small indent on a scifi door)? The operation would have to decide whether to slide a whole edgeloop potentially consisting of many vertices (and mess up a lot of existing geometry in the process), or stop the slide at some arbitrary point along the loop which would still cause distortion anyway. I don't think it would result in a cleaner result on anything other that the most simple geometry.
I agree that Arc should be the default though. I can't think of a reason that Sharp should be preferred.
You do know that this is just asking for an option which might be useful in certain cases whether simple or not? it seems you're doing rounds here to dismiss people's ideas or something.