Hello together.

I have experimented with the new bevel tools and i like it a lot. The limiting options are a nice addition.

Nonetheless I have found some issues, perhaps someone can help:
- with the old bevel sop, after beveling there was a selection which could be used with a consecutive operation. this does not work with the new bevel
- more importantly, there is no output group which contains the beveled faces (the old one had an output group bevelprims)
- the old bevel tool accepted a offscale attribute, the new one seems to miss?
- the old bevel tool had to modes, fixed width and fixed offset. how is this achieved in the new one?

Thanks in advance.

No comments?

Please log this.

Seems like PolyBevel is broken in the latest build. I will submit a BUG report.

Yes, I have also the latest build. By the way, Werner have you more infos about direct modling plugin? I saw Alexey did prepare it for H18. Are there any infos, new features coming? Thanks.

I have submitted a BUG report with video captures.
BUG #101769

anyone else no a fan of the dotted adjacent lines that you're supposed to grab and drag?
seems like it adds unnecessary clutter - the previous system with the MMB was much better imo. now MMB seems to increase the number of divisions instead of the bevel width.
so cumbersome…

pickled
anyone else no a fan of the dotted adjacent lines that you're supposed to grab and drag?
seems like it adds unnecessary clutter - the previous system with the MMB was much better imo. now MMB seems to increase the number of divisions instead of the bevel width.
so cumbersome…

In 17.5 MMB changes the divisions! At least in my version.

houGenie
In 17.5 MMB changes the divisions! At least in my version.

You must have a special version of 17.5

pickled
anyone else no a fan of the dotted adjacent lines that you're supposed to grab and drag?
seems like it adds unnecessary clutter - the previous system with the MMB was much better imo. now MMB seems to increase the number of divisions instead of the bevel width.
so cumbersome…

You can click anywhere in the viewport and drag horizontally to adjust the distance.

eikonoklastes
You can click anywhere in the viewport and drag horizontally to adjust the distance.

Aye! I've discovered that short after I've posted my previous comment. Adjusting the increment is certainly “work in progress”. It is, isn't it?

But what is this? (attached image) I challenge anyone to guess what edges I've beveled.
There are other problems I've detected and I have to find the time to build my case for Support, but I cannot help being the oddball here and ask whether SideFX is taking this seriously.
It seems that it doesn't, after 3-4 versions since they said they'll make Houdini a standard for modeling (paraphrasing, something of the sorts) - a too low hanging fruit, modeling that is, one has to stoop too low to grab it from their so high upper branch.

Lately, I've been busy with pondering about my naivete, as I've praised SideFX regarding the “volatile alignment” tools, as being brilliant and with an XSI DNA in it. Apparently I was half right - it probably has XSI's DNA in it (since Softimage's devs got absorbed into Maya dev team), but it came through Maya as I've recently discovered they're similar. Or maybe I'm mistaken and Autodesk copied SideFX, I don't have a record of change logs for both pieces of software - doubt it.

It's just sad and embarrassing and if some decision making person from SideFX reads this, please repeat this a few times in your mind while you get up from your desk towards the water-cooler: “got to copy XSI, not Maya; got to…”. There are too many people saying XSI was brilliant as far as UX goes, so it can't be a conspiracy or mass delusion. People coming from Max, Maya and wherever. So you might as well copy from there, if you must copy from somewhere.
Or start innovating on this front too. We know you can.

From the Houdini Main Changelogs…
18.0.352 PolyBevel now makes a selection of the fillet polygons when invoked through the viewport.

Thanks Bardia! One down, more to go.

LMB drag horizontally is the best method to drag out the bevel. This is how most other successful 3d applications does it.
In the latest version, it feels like the bevel amount match screen space drag much closer, so I am very happy about this.

Scroll wheel to increase divisions makes perfect sense. This, gives you the option to go from Chamfer to Round, all in one go….again, like most other 3d applications out there.
This is fantastic, and should have been the default in the previous PBevel, but was not.

I still feel like the Shift Option would be better utilized if it was used to drive the Flatness angle, on the fly, instead of drag amount.

Werner Ziemerink
This is fantastic, and should have been the default in the previous PBevel, but was not.

This is fine with me, as I can adapt to new ways of doing things, as most people do. Of course the question “is this actually better” should always float around within the mind and make changes based on how that question's answer comes out. This is in stark opposition to “make it so because others have it” and I'm not saying this is the case with the new bevel, but it happened with other changes that, IMO, have been implemented to merely satisfy familiarity with other s/w, for the worse.

The issue of having the adjacent edges highlighted in blue instead of the actual beveled ones is still baffling to me. Care to share how you find it useful if at all?

Werner Ziemerink
Thanks Bardia! One down, more to go.

I have filed a few RFEs too, one bug and one or two new features that are lacking.
So yeah, more to go.

pickled

Werner Ziemerink
This is fantastic, and should have been the default in the previous PBevel, but was not.

This is fine with me, as I can adapt to new ways of doing things, as most people do. Of course the question “is this actually better” should always float around within the mind and make changes based on how that question's answer comes out. This is in stark opposition to “make it so because others have it” and I'm not saying this is the case with the new bevel, but it happened with other changes that, IMO, have been implemented to merely satisfy familiarity with other s/w, for the worse.

The issue of having the adjacent edges highlighted in blue instead of the actual beveled ones is still baffling to me. Care to share how you find it useful if at all?

Werner Ziemerink
Thanks Bardia! One down, more to go.

I have filed a few RFEs too, one bug and one or two new features that are lacking.
So yeah, more to go.

Hello dear pickled.
Is there any explain for this?

The HIP file attached.
Thanks.

N-G
Is there any explain for this?

Most likely a bug related to a the “Round” Shape. For example “Solid” and “Chamfer” are working fine.
Submit this bug too, maybe it'll speedup its squashing.

pickled

N-G
Is there any explain for this?

Most likely a bug related to a the “Round” Shape. For example “Solid” and “Chamfer” are working fine.
Submit this bug too, maybe it'll speedup its squashing.

What a pity!
SESI said:
The collision detection is only for the collisions between the moving offset edges that bound the fillet (the boundaries when you use None for the Fillet option). The collisions between corner meshes of individual fillet patches are not detected (and will not be).

So SESI does not confirm it as a bug!

Well, then it's not related to the bug I reported, since that has been logged and has a number.

Hello people. I wasn't sure if I should start a new post, but perhaps some of you might have a solution.

I am following a beginners class but this isn't a problem in the build(16.5.323) that is in the tutorial, but it happening in the build I am on which is 18.0.445.

Basically I am trying to bevel an edge group from a boolean, but I can't figure out how to get a clean bevel.






The only way I could get a clean bevel is to enable Restrict Sliding to Ring Edges, but I would like both side of the bevel to be my distance at 0.015.


Any help would be apperciated and thanks for reading.