The name doesn’t have to stay as this. It started out as
Fatten, but apparently the direct translation of that into Spanish doesn’t sound good, so there was a long discussion about naming, avoiding confusion with any existing command names, and this was the one landed on just before the last WIP went out. I agree it’s not exactly catchy and can be reconsidered though.
I’m not sure I understand exactly “multiple handles in order to define different rays (variable pipes)”. Different radii along the pipe? then yes, as shown in my previous post, there can be an option for how many rings of vertices to add along each strut, and optionally to also provide different radii for each of these rings.
@Max3 That’s a nice example, and I imagine it will often make sense to use the tool like this - moving the vertices around after output. There are so many ways people might want the sizing and shape of the different struts and nodes to be controlled, and rather than try and make inputs for every possibility, it could be better for the component to focus on generating good topology, and then structuring it in a way that makes it easy to modify the geometry further downstream (and maybe including an output of the graph structure it uses internally as a way of navigating what connects to what).
Yes, the hope is to later bring back the option of including not just curves but faces and maybe even solids in the input.This is a bit more complicated now, since nodes don’t always have a single axis like they did with the old version, but I’ll figure something out.