Round Edges 1.6

[steyin]

The older handling of this is better I agree.


When my office models, we do not connect geometry for many elements (walls, mullions, etc) as during design things are constantly changing/moving. Such elements are left as extrusions that intersect. With the new behavior we would have to change our modeling approach and redo everything from scratch time and time again versus leaving everything as it was. Very annoying.

[phildavis17]

Should this thread be moved to bug reporting?

[romullus]

I don't think so. However, if you want round edges behaviour to be changed, you can open new feature request.

[agentdark45]

I also noticed some odd behavior with rounded edges in 1.6.

There are cases where I can't/wont join meshes together but I want rounded corners just on the visible edges only - this worked perfectly before 1.6 but now it doesn't. I have a visible seam on objects touching each other no matter what rounded edge options I select.

To me the rounded edges feature was about simplicity; being able to knock up a super simple model without having to worry about supporting loops/polygon flow to get nice chamfered corners.

[Monkeybrother]

Well, if the different options doesn't make a difference (if they all give the same result), it must be a bug?

[romullus]

Could it be that you simply don't understand how it works?

[Monkeybrother]

I understand perfectly well how it's supposed to work. I haven't used 1.6 in production yet (I'm wating for confirmation that there aren't any major bugs), I'm going by what has been said in this thread. Someone posted an example showing that the different options gave the exact same result.

[romullus]

Well, as you can see, the difference is there. It works as intended. As i said before, if someone doesn't like current behaviour, they should open new feature request and not a bug report.

[Ludvik Koutny]

True, it doesn't work like chamfer if you have overlapping faces, but if you have overlapping faces anywhere in your scene, then you have a much bigger problem than rounded edges not working the way you want them.

[lolec]

Well, as you can see, the difference is there. It works as intended. As i said before, if someone doesn't like current behaviour, they should open new feature request and not a bug report.

If something worked one way, and no one complained. Then it was changed and people complained, and 0 people are happier with the newer way, wouldn't that make it a bug?

I understand that this doesn't affect your or Rawalanche's workflow, but it clearly breaks many peoples'.

I used overlapping faces as an extreme scenario to demonstrate that the system doesn't make sense, you can't argue that it is correct for corona to add round corners in the middle of an object, regardless of  that not being a "correct" workflow in your mind. The real case scenario is 2 objects touching, 0 gap, 0 overlap.  What we are arguing is that it would be better for Corona to treat THAT case as if both objects are one, the way it used to handle it, and EVERYONE was happy with.

[Marvey]

same problema here, would like much more how worked in the old builds...

[PROH]

@lolec - IIRC there has been some request to make round edges work exactly as it does know. I think one of the requested scenarios was Windows, where the inner and outer frame was seperate elements in the same object, and the wanted round edge behavior was exactly as it is now.

But hey - that might be from some of those users you're counting as 0....

[lolec]

@lolec - IIRC there has been some request to make round edges work exactly as it does know. I think one of the requested scenarios was Windows, where the inner and outer frame was seperate elements in the same object, and the wanted round edge behavior was exactly as it is now.

But hey - that might be from some of those users you're counting as 0....

I'm not counting anyone as 0, I searched and couldn't find anyone complaining about the old behavior, that's why I said that. If there is a case to be made for this to work both ways, I think the sensible way forward would be to add a checkbox maybe?

I don't think "This is the expected behavior"  or "This is the most logical way" are good arguments, because there are so many different workflows and uses for corona, that what is expected or logical for someone doesn't make sense for someone else.

The window argument you brought to the conversation is 100% valid, as it reflects an actual benefit and not just a conceptual rightness.

It's funny how you try to make me look like an asshole for dismissing people, it's not a personal attack on anyone to give my opinion on this feature change. It's just that the way this thing used to work was very VERY useful for many people, I think that deserves to be said.

[Monkeybrother]

I just tried to get the new rounded edges to work and for my/our purposes it just doesn't. For example, I'm working on a hospital, 15 floors with 1000's of objects straight from revit (that sit flush against eachother), are you telling me that going through that model, merging objects and removing interior faces by hand to be able to use rounded edges is a better workflow than before? In 1.5 it just works.

That the new rounded edges behaves like the chamfer modifier doesn't make any sense. When I chamfer stuff I don't select all border edges and apply chamfer, I chamfer edges that needs to be chamfered, ie edges on the actual border of the form. And again, in 1.5 it just works.

I'm sorry, but you just made rounded edges non-usable for me and a lot of users.

[Frood]

+1 for at least the option to have the behaviour like it was in 1.5.

And would go a step further and say it should be the default. This way old scenes (we have multiple projects which are running 1-2 years or even longer) aren´t broken.

While with other changes in the renderer everyone was eager to maintain compatibility as far as possible, this one comes along quite anoying. I don´t get it. This issue alone is a reason for a v1.6.1 for me personally.

This is what it´s all about. Reworking scenes with such elements is hell of a work and you have to drop all parametric parts usually. It seems in fact less work to revert to 1.5 when picking up a long run project than rework them.

Apart from this I agree to others claiming that usual workflows (and no, I don´t  mean modelling Neuschwanstein Castle from a box with edit poly in half an hour like Rawa does) are also broken.


Good Luck