I’m getting mad with OffsetSrf,
- It’s a tool with only a commandline interface yet with a lot of parameters
- The options differ based on the input (surface or polysurface)
- The behaviour differs depending on the input (surface or polysurface)
- There is no loose option for polysurfaces that would offset loose into a solid perfectly
- There is no way to offset a polysurface both sides into a solid
- The options in the commandline dance about whenever I change something.
PLEASE revise this for V6 it’s not that this is a trivial command.
It should have a dialog period
It should clearly distinguish between srf and polysrf, or behave equally
Polysrf should be able to be offset loose into a solid ( make this advanced mode if you will) but planar surfaces with a tangent fillet should be possible to offset loose.
Make it clear what is happening and un-tangle the option spaghetti, for the current implementation is a clear example where a tool was improved under the hood, yet miserably failed to get implemented in a proper way.
@bobmcneel could you read along please:
See the example below when offsetting a polysrf:
choose solid: “hey would you like to delete the input?”
choose non solid : " Hey in that case I can do it both ways, would you like to"
There is no logic behind this whatsoever. How on earth did this get into a release? I’m used to it because as a WIP user we tested the improvements on the workings of offsetting polysurfaces and the UI slowly crept in until it did not bother me enough anymore but
why… is this … this …
PLEASE make sure this type of implementations are prevented, what should a trainer tell students explaining this? How can one take a surface modeler serious that implements offsetting surfaces in such half harted sloppy way?