My units are millimeters with 0.001 units absolute tolerance.
When using the QuadRemesh command I often prefer to try a specific target edge length. I might start with 5 or 10 or any integer.
Clicking the arrows or tapping cursor up / down keys allow increasing / decreasing the value. By default this is done in hundreds of millimeters.
I think the increment is much too small and at least in my work I hardly ever need to increase the edge length by one hundred of a millimeter…
Can this default be changed in a setting somewhere?
I understand that when using meters as units, it might come in handy to be able to increase / decrease by centimeters but when using millimeters, I think an increment of 1 would be more efficient.
I also think there could be a little more flexibility here. I’m working in meters, but want to create a very fine grid. There is a lower limit to Target Edge Length of 0.01 since the numeric up/down box only allows 2 decimal places. This is doesn’t for my current use case. My current work around is to just increase the target quad count, but I don’t have control over the size the mesh faces then.
The scripted version of the command allows you to enter a smaller value, but it apparently gets changed internally and 0.01 is still the smallest that can be used.
A cheat you can always use is to scale up your part 2x, 4x whatever, then mesh it as dense as you need, then scale it back down 2x, 4x or whatever you chose to scale it up by.
So if the new increment is 0.001, it’s going to be a real pain to change the target edge length incrementally in steps of 1 unit with the up down arrows.
What I’ve been doing recently is making the increment step change if you type in something and press Enter. So .002 Enter will start stepping at .001 after.
Is there any possibility of adding a simple deviation tolerance? Similar to FitSrf? Guessing the edge length or quad count always feels like stabbing in the dark, but my “fit” tolerance is known.
99 times out of a 100 I just use target quad count of like 2500 or 5000 and 97-100 adaptive size %.
but a deviation tolerance would be sweet, cause I think even the target quad count should be adaptive.
I think a minimum and maximum edge length would make more sense than target edge length.
although maybe it’s cause of the “mesh”-like nature of SubD and the secret RE nature of the new Rhino, cause “target edge length” is a RE phenomenon when remeshing meshes within a high precision workspace.
Not sure why the target edge length should be constrained to all curvature areas like high curvavture versus low curvature, the edge length should be more adaptable or more options.
that would be so sweet. I’ve always enjoyed having that tolerance calculation. I use it hundreds of times a day.
Sounds like I need to remember this trick 
like a tolerance deviation relativity thing 
