Polybevel SOP issues
8684 17 1- stu
- Member
- 246 posts
- Joined: 7月 2005
- Offline
Next on my list, the Polybevel SOP .
RFE's on the SI topic notwithstanding, I keep coming across an issue that I'm going to call a bug, and one that has caused me a lot of grief recently.
When I use the Polybevel SOP with the “High Density Round” option and “Repetitions” set higher than 1 I get a strange result at the junctions. The result is a strange deformation in the position of the newly created junction point geometry that results in a bumpy, non-uniform result, and certainly isn't what's expected. I've attached a file and an image, below. I've run into cases where the phenomenon is far more exaggerated but I just quickly threw together an example.
Whenever I need to round the corners and use a “Repetitions” value higher than 1, I use “High Density Round” rather that “Low Density Round” because I'd argue that the “Low Density” result is even less intuitive.
Again, I consider this a bug., and has been submitted as such: 62183.
RFE's on the SI topic notwithstanding, I keep coming across an issue that I'm going to call a bug, and one that has caused me a lot of grief recently.
When I use the Polybevel SOP with the “High Density Round” option and “Repetitions” set higher than 1 I get a strange result at the junctions. The result is a strange deformation in the position of the newly created junction point geometry that results in a bumpy, non-uniform result, and certainly isn't what's expected. I've attached a file and an image, below. I've run into cases where the phenomenon is far more exaggerated but I just quickly threw together an example.
Whenever I need to round the corners and use a “Repetitions” value higher than 1, I use “High Density Round” rather that “Low Density Round” because I'd argue that the “Low Density” result is even less intuitive.
Again, I consider this a bug., and has been submitted as such: 62183.
- stu
- Member
- 246 posts
- Joined: 7月 2005
- Offline
Two more issues that I have with the polybevel SOP are as follows (at least one of these was mentioned in the SI thread but I want to keep these together for organizational purposes):
1. The newly created bevel doesn't create the surfaces with an appropriate radius. The result is an unexpected bulge outwards in the beveled edge, beyond what can be represented with a circle with the same radius and point count (see image below). My expectation would be that a beveled edge would create a circular cross section, adjusted to accommodate the incoming tangents obviously.
2. The edge lengths in the newly created bevel geometry differ in length. I'd expect the edges to be the same length, as seen in a polygonal circle. Again, see below.
Bug or RFE? I'll submit accordingly.
1. The newly created bevel doesn't create the surfaces with an appropriate radius. The result is an unexpected bulge outwards in the beveled edge, beyond what can be represented with a circle with the same radius and point count (see image below). My expectation would be that a beveled edge would create a circular cross section, adjusted to accommodate the incoming tangents obviously.
2. The edge lengths in the newly created bevel geometry differ in length. I'd expect the edges to be the same length, as seen in a polygonal circle. Again, see below.
Bug or RFE? I'll submit accordingly.
- stu
- Member
- 246 posts
- Joined: 7月 2005
- Offline
- stu
- Member
- 246 posts
- Joined: 7月 2005
- Offline
Not to beat a dead horse, but here's an animated example demonstrating the “bulge” increase and chord length inconsistency on angle change. The grey line represents the polybevel SOP solution, and the black line is mine (and represents my expectation). I'm not animating any of the polybevel SOP parameters here, I'm just animating the angle on the incoming polygons to open and close over 80 frames. You can see that my black line maintains a circular radius with uniform span lengths while the polybevel SOP does not (see attached).
Again, black=what I'd expect (consistently tangential circular radius under all circumstances with uniform chord lengths), grey= polybevel SOP in it's current state (inconsistent deformation with non-uniform chord lengths).
Thoughts?
Again, black=what I'd expect (consistently tangential circular radius under all circumstances with uniform chord lengths), grey= polybevel SOP in it's current state (inconsistent deformation with non-uniform chord lengths).
Thoughts?
- Doudini
- Member
- 333 posts
- Joined: 10月 2012
- Offline
- stu
- Member
- 246 posts
- Joined: 7月 2005
- Offline
RFE submitted: 62207
One could argue that the issue with the inconsistent radius is counter to the expected behaviour and therefore a bug, but I've logged it as an RFE because, technically, it's not “broken”. If someone from SESI wants to make a change to either one of these classifications it's fine with me (whatever get's the SOP some attention ).
So, to recap:
1. Bug submitted for the bumpy geometry.
2. RFE submitted for the non-circular radius and non-uniform spans.
The Polybevel SOP is a staple in my modeling work and I'd love to see it live up to it's potential. Like I said earlier there are other things as well, but these are the first two big ones for me.
One could argue that the issue with the inconsistent radius is counter to the expected behaviour and therefore a bug, but I've logged it as an RFE because, technically, it's not “broken”. If someone from SESI wants to make a change to either one of these classifications it's fine with me (whatever get's the SOP some attention ).
So, to recap:
1. Bug submitted for the bumpy geometry.
2. RFE submitted for the non-circular radius and non-uniform spans.
The Polybevel SOP is a staple in my modeling work and I'd love to see it live up to it's potential. Like I said earlier there are other things as well, but these are the first two big ones for me.
- stu
- Member
- 246 posts
- Joined: 7月 2005
- Offline
- Doudini
- Member
- 333 posts
- Joined: 10月 2012
- Offline
- anon_user_37409885
- Member
- 4189 posts
- Joined: 6月 2012
- Offline
- Sadjad Rabiee
- Member
- 1391 posts
- Joined: 12月 2010
- Offline
- stu
- Member
- 246 posts
- Joined: 7月 2005
- Offline
- Sadjad Rabiee
- Member
- 1391 posts
- Joined: 12月 2010
- Offline
- stu
- Member
- 246 posts
- Joined: 7月 2005
- Offline
- Doudini
- Member
- 333 posts
- Joined: 10月 2012
- Offline
- Sadjad Rabiee
- Member
- 1391 posts
- Joined: 12月 2010
- Offline
- stu
- Member
- 246 posts
- Joined: 7月 2005
- Offline
I've just noticed another idiosyncrasy with the polybevel SOP - it's behaviour changes based on the size of the object. If I have a small object and bevel the edges using the “Absolute” setting at, say, an inset of .01 I get a different result than if I scale the object up 10x before the polybevel SOP and change the “Absolute” inset to be 10x the value that I used for the object at 1/10th the size. In theory, they should be identical, no? I get an unwanted result if the object and the “Absolute” inset are too small.
- Siavash Tehrani
- Member
- 711 posts
- Joined: 7月 2005
- Offline
- stu
- Member
- 246 posts
- Joined: 7月 2005
- Offline
-
- Quick Links