Bugs in Rhino 6 + suggestions for the BlendSrf command

Hi Pascal, thank you for taking note on that matter! I see that many people already requested edge align of the “Blend surface” handles years ago.

By the way, I misspelled some words in the 1st image from my last post. I just updated the image. :slight_smile: Hopefully it’s easier to understand now. I will post it here just in case:

To clarify. My proposition for the “Divide edge” option is basically a “Rebuild surface U” inside “Blend surface” while the latter command is still active. Being able to divide the “Blend surface” into custom number of segments greatly increases the ability to manually adjust its shape via control point manipulation, prior applying “Match surface”. Also, the user would be able to try different number of segments (5, 10, 50 etc) until he or she is satisfied by the result at the given tolerance. This could be even more useful if Rhino 7 implements a live preview of the gap between the target edge and the blend surface edge while running the “Blend surface” command.
Along with “Divide edge”, I also proposed two more options for rebuilding the surface: “Distance from edge” (similar to “Refine match > Distance” in the “Match surface” tool) and “Minimum CP distance” (it will prevent building of blend surface with extremely dense control point structure).

Several days ago in another topic you posted an image showing one improvement for “Blend surface” in Rhino 7 WIP that build a simplified surface. Rhino 6’s “Blend surface” creates an excessive number of control points that are not necessary most of the time.
The following case is just one example of that. Check the picture with the Zebra stripes. Note that the two input surface at the left side were cut by isocurve, exposing a very clean edge to work with. However, “Blend surface” was unable to obtain the same number of control points as the input surfaces, ultimately adding extra control point rows. On the right side, however, I drew two curves on the input surfaces with the “Interpolate curve on surface” command, then I used them as target curves for the “Match surface” with the “CurveNearSurface = On” option. Despite being non-parallel to the isocurves of the target surfaces, the edges of the matched surface remained as simple as possible while achieving G2 continuity. I think that “Blend surface” also should be allowed to match to inside of target surfaces in a similar fashion (currently, it’s limited to use only surface edges as input).
Loft plus Match surface.3dm (7.4 MB)