This is possible and we could implement it pretty quickly, but it is limited to certain types of patterns. If you have no singularities, you can of course scale distances for the two directions independently. If there are singularities you can typically only make the pattern denser without destroying the mesh structure, and whether you can do this independently for the two directions or only for both at once depends on the type of the singularities (let me know if you want us to elaborate on this).
Anyways, we think it is a great suggestion and we’ll definitely work on it once we get the plugin to the stable state.
Exactly. Now there’s several options one could use to enforce these bounds once the parametrization is done.
If one of the bounds is violated almost everywhere you might need to change the ideal value and parametrize again (there’s even ways to do this without recomputing the whole thing in many cases). This iteration could also be done automatically until the bounds are met, we will think about this.
If you like the output but have problems in some specific areas, you could extract a mesh and use some local subdivision methods followed by a relaxation, both of which are in EvoluteTools PRO (or even LITE).
Enforcing or even optimizing for planarity directly is not something that the T.MAP algorithm is designed for. However, as you observed yourself, if you set the pattern to follow the mesh curvature you will generally get the best results in that respect. Such a T.MAP output mesh would then be ideally suited to optimize for planarity using EvoluteTools PRO. There, you can easily observe the planarity measure and optimize until a given bound is met.
Yes, this option should be visible in our web shop within the next few hours.
We would of course be very happy if you’d decide to use our tools! Please let us know if there’s anything else we can help you with.