Vertex Bevel Tool in MODO and Blender: Different behaviours but both useful

In the process of comparing basic tools and workflows between MODO and Blender I came across the different behaviours between MODO’s and Blender’s Vertex Bevel tools.

In MODO, I get this type of nice rounded effect if I use a Round Level of higher than 0:MODO_Vertex_BevelHowever, the resulting n-gons surfaces look artifacty unless I then bevel them in to create some ‘support geometry’:MODO_Vertex_Bevel_SupportGeoBlender’s works differently. You cannot get the same type of rounding effect on the edges as in MODO but the surfaces are clean. Here’s me using Blender’s Vertex Bevel and importing the resulting mesh into MODO:Blender_Vertex_BevelNow on this example, the resulting shape looks just like what you get in MODO with a Round Level of 0. But there is a so-called Profile option in Blender’s Vertex Bevel tool that does make use of the additional subdivisions on the newly created corner surfaces:Blender_Vertex_Bevel_ProfileIt pushes in/out the newly created surfaces. But the edges between the originally selected vertices remain straight.

Personally I find both tools’ behaviour useful and would like to see either tool include the other’s capabilities. If I had to make a choice I’d say that MODO’s tool is probably more versatile though because the nice edge rounding you can achieve with it is something I need more frequently than the bulging in/out effect that Blender’s Profile option does.



Posted

in

by

Tags:

Comments

2 responses to “Vertex Bevel Tool in MODO and Blender: Different behaviours but both useful”

  1. Daniel Gamage avatar

    Hey Chris,

    modo’s smoothing is causing the distortion on the cube. It can be modified either on the mesh properties and set from “Always Enabled” to “Always Disabled” or in the material properties under Material Ref > Surface Normal > Smoothing. It can be a pain sometimes 🙂

    Hope that’s helpful!

    Dan

    1. Chris Offner avatar

      Very helpful indeed, thank you Daniel. I hadn’t thought of that. 🙂

      Cheers,
      Chris

Leave a Reply to Daniel Gamage Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *