scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> >
> >> Note that there are two distinct types of "round" being discussed, it's
> >> important not to confuse them. The first is the "CAD" type of perfect
> >> round that is formed by conceptually rolling a sphere (of radius equal
> >> to the round you want) along the edge. The second is this type of
> >> "artistic" round that smoothly blends the two shapes, but is not
> >> necessarily possible to accurately specify the round radius (or it might
> >> not even be constant throughout the round).
> >
> > My point exactly when I wrote:
> >
> >>> (The calculation might be faster with cubic; the corners would not be exactly
> >>> circular, but would anyone notice or care?)
> >
> > Maybe we could go further and, with an extra optional parameter, change the
> > profile of the rounding from a rounded bevel to a "V" shape?
>
> I don't think the method you are suggesting is capable of generating
> correct rounds (with constant radius curvature and tangent to both
> faces) nor creating a constant "V" profile (a bevel). But willing to be
> proved wrong, give it a go with some simple shapes and isosurfaces/blobs
> and see what you get. If you're on to something then some working
> example code will go *far* further than just a text description.

Totally agree, I am working on it.

The aim is for a tangent at both ends with a smooth curve in between. A constant
radius is only needed in CAD to specify the shape of a real thing. Here, if it
looks good. it is good.

Post a reply to this message