I forgot to thank you at the time for adding support for zero segment uniform chamfers, Coven. It's helped a lot, so I really appreciate it!
I'm trying to setup a more nondestuctive workflow for stacked chamfers and fillets of varying sizes like in this very simple, exaggerrated example:
I want to vary the fillets from the first chamfer modifier using crease-weights (I select the edges via the datachannel modifier), and I want to do the same kind of thing for the second chamfer modifier on top of the fillets from the first mod only using edge depth or weights for the chamfer scale/amount. The second image shows what the mesh looks like without the modifiers and the edges I applied edge-weights to.
It doesn't seem like edge depth is supported at all in the modifier for the amount and it seems like the edge-weights aren't getting propagated out along the new edges created by the first chamfer modifier.
I'm wondering, would it be possible to add support for giving the new edges the same edge data properties as their neighboring edges? Getting support for using the edge depth would be useful as well if we can get a fix for the first issue.
Hey @RobinK Yeah if I can get a file, I'd be happy to take a look. Can you also tell me which version you are using? I know 2020, but any of the updates? Thanks!
Ok, so you want the edges that are selected to be driven with crease weights with the first chamfer modifier, and the edges that are weighted with a depth weight to be chamfered and weighted with a depth map with the second chamfer modifier?
Yeah, you're right. I should've been a bit clearer on what I wanted to acheive with my setup. What I wanted to do is to be able to use 1 chamfer modifier to do the big fillets (with varying sizes/widths based on the edge crease-weight property) and then on top of that slap down a chamfer modifier to do smaller edgechamfers (also of varying sizes but this time based on eitherthe edge depth or the edge weight property).
We can do this already, but the problem is that the new edges created by the chamfer modifier do not inherit the edgeproperties from the the edges they were created from, they just get reset to a default value of 1. Here's a picture of what happens after you apply the chamfer modifier to create those two big fillets to better show you what I mean: Strangely if I go in with the chamfer modelling tool (as opposed to the modifier) it seems the new edges retain the edgeweight of the edges it was created from so hopefully that means this would be an easy bug to fix.
I went in and manually worked up the mesh a little bit more to better show the kind of case where this functionality would be useful. If this bug/issue got fixed I would like to be able to make a mesh with different edgechamfer widths like all the selected faces above with just a single chamfer modifier. I would also like to stack another chamfer modifier before it to give me the bigger fillets so I'd be able to get the result above from something as simple as this while keeping it all non-destructive: It almost works exactly the way I want it to, there's just a (hopefully) small issue preventing this kind of workflow.
Oh I think I understand. Yeah chamfer probably doesn't update the data on the newly generated edges like we do in edit/able poly. I'll write up a story for that. For your particular model, it makes sense to do it with two chamfers, as you are currently. If you wanted to keep it procedural, you could select the top edges for the larger chamfer, add the chamfer to that selection. Then you could add a edit poly modifier to add the weights for the rest of the chamfers and add a second chamfer modifier on top.
I understand wanting to retain the existing data though. Thanks for the detailed explination!
I know you can do this stuff via edit poly modifiers and keep it semi-non-destructive. The only issue is that if I were to go in and start manipulating or adding/removing geo then I'll have to in and manually select the edges I want filleted and chamferred again. For a mesh of this complexity it wouldn't be too bad, but if you've got a mesh with a lot more going on where you want to preview fillets and chamfers as you're working up the mesh it's not an ideal workflow. That's why I wish we could get the functionality for this implemented.
Thanks again for all these chamfer improvements, they are making a big difference. I am getting a bug in 21 where edges with 0 weight are getting chamfered when filter all edges is on. This seemed to work fine in 20. Would also like to make a case for edges being 0 weight by default (or an option to set a default creation weight) so newly created edges don't get chamfered.
I'll log it. Sorry for the bug. We recently fixed a different case with chamfer. Must have broken something. For now if you want to stay with 2021, but use the 2020 algorithm, you can run this on your chamfer modified object. $.modifiers[1].SetVersion #Ver2020_1
I filed this on the Report A Problem site for Max but thought I'd mention it here as well for added visibility and hopefully getting a fix sorted out.
The vertexchamfer tool got some improvements in 2020 or 2021 where you can now do fillets with it, however there are some still some pretty big problems with the tool when you've got certain topology like this where you want to fillet the middle vertex:
Doing this with the vertexchamfer tool tends to give you results similar to these shots containing degenerate geometry often with both open edges and stray verts which become cumbersome to clean up:
The best workaround I've found is to just cut in an extra edge onto a flat edge and then just do a normal edgechamfer on that instead. However doing this will obviously take longer than just doing a vertexchamfer (assuming it worked as expected) as you need to first do your extra cut and then remove the undesired edges first and then after that remove the undesired vertices.
For the sake of clarity here's the kind of result I would want after just vertex-chamfering that middle vert (no weird stray vertices, open edges or anything, just clean geo):
Why do you want that specific topology though? It doesn't make much sense to chamfer in the middle of a flat surface like that. What's the desired end result?
Sorry for the late reply. The reason for why I want topology like this is that it becomes a good starting point for further detailing down the line. Say you're making a sci-fi floor and you need to do some simple panel breakup if you do it with kind of topology you can get some decent result very quickly. Here's a super-quick example of what I'm talking about using very simple geometry and some modifiers (chamfers and shell modifiers mainly):
Obviously it would need more detailing and refinement but it would be a pretty good start for a blockout model.
Replies
https://www.dropbox.com/s/918nu8z0krc81mm/dodgy_chamfers_creasewights_edgeweights.max?dl=0
Here's a picture of what happens after you apply the chamfer modifier to create those two big fillets to better show you what I mean:
Strangely if I go in with the chamfer modelling tool (as opposed to the modifier) it seems the new edges retain the edgeweight of the edges it was created from so hopefully that means this would be an easy bug to fix.
If this bug/issue got fixed I would like to be able to make a mesh with different edgechamfer widths like all the selected faces above with just a single chamfer modifier. I would also like to stack another chamfer modifier before it to give me the bigger fillets so I'd be able to get the result above from something as simple as this while keeping it all non-destructive:
It almost works exactly the way I want it to, there's just a (hopefully) small issue preventing this kind of workflow.
You can find the maxfile with these meshes here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/u6wgr5ik8jka30m/Chamfer_woes.max?dl=0
Thanks for you time, Coven!
I understand wanting to retain the existing data though. Thanks for the detailed explination!
And here is the file.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/h5i0a1nkryqn7a0/Chamfer_woes_MC.max?dl=0
I know you can do this stuff via edit poly modifiers and keep it semi-non-destructive. The only issue is that if I were to go in and start manipulating or adding/removing geo then I'll have to in and manually select the edges I want filleted and chamferred again. For a mesh of this complexity it wouldn't be too bad, but if you've got a mesh with a lot more going on where you want to preview fillets and chamfers as you're working up the mesh it's not an ideal workflow. That's why I wish we could get the functionality for this implemented.
I am getting a bug in 21 where edges with 0 weight are getting chamfered when filter all edges is on. This seemed to work fine in 20.
Would also like to make a case for edges being 0 weight by default (or an option to set a default creation weight) so newly created edges don't get chamfered.
$.modifiers[1].SetVersion #Ver2020_1
I filed this on the Report A Problem site for Max but thought I'd mention it here as well for added visibility and hopefully getting a fix sorted out.
The vertexchamfer tool got some improvements in 2020 or 2021 where you can now do fillets with it, however there are some still some pretty big problems with the tool when you've got certain topology like this where you want to fillet the middle vertex:
Doing this with the vertexchamfer tool tends to give you results similar to these shots containing degenerate geometry often with both open edges and stray verts which become cumbersome to clean up:
The best workaround I've found is to just cut in an extra edge onto a flat edge and then just do a normal edgechamfer on that instead. However doing this will obviously take longer than just doing a vertexchamfer (assuming it worked as expected) as you need to first do your extra cut and then remove the undesired edges first and then after that remove the undesired vertices.
For the sake of clarity here's the kind of result I would want after just vertex-chamfering that middle vert (no weird stray vertices, open edges or anything, just clean geo):
Thanks in advance!
Why do you want that specific topology though? It doesn't make much sense to chamfer in the middle of a flat surface like that. What's the desired end result?
Sorry for the late reply. The reason for why I want topology like this is that it becomes a good starting point for further detailing down the line. Say you're making a sci-fi floor and you need to do some simple panel breakup if you do it with kind of topology you can get some decent result very quickly. Here's a super-quick example of what I'm talking about using very simple geometry and some modifiers (chamfers and shell modifiers mainly):
Obviously it would need more detailing and refinement but it would be a pretty good start for a blockout model.