I have to say, I would much rather they both behaved like
Split with Isocurve is still superior to
splitface in that it shows you the projection lines so you can see that something undesirable is happening.
I still revert to my point in the other thread that I cannot see any reason why this pulling would be desirable in any circumstance when working in a parallel / ortho view. It just makes both
splitface unnecessarily finicky and very easy to get the wrong result.
If you want to work perpendicular to a face then set up a CPlane to do it. Forcing this pulling of a perpendicular interaction is counterintuitive and a bad experience that results in modelling errors. The examples given result in very obvious errors because the distances are large. Modelling with smaller geometry that results in a smaller error may not be visible and the user would have no way of knowing until later on finding that something had gone wrong.
I think the way that
trim works is exactly what I think most users would need and expect and would much rather both
splitface to work in the same way as it. Currently there are three different behaviours for three very similar tools. One (
trim) is good, the other (
split) is OK because at least it shows you the error as it is happening and the other (
splitface) is basically broken. Here is a video showing the three behaviours in order. Note the
split with isocurve is really annoying in that it tries very hard to do the wrong thing but it can be made to work as desired.
It is really striking when using these three tools in order, how the interface, naming of options (line, isocurve, axis) varies. The snapping / UI within the viewport is different. It seems like these are all three different approaches to doing something very similar. This is exactly contrary to the points made in the original thread about how fixing
splitface would make it inconsistent with other tools. In fact, all three tools are completely inconsistent as it is and the debate should be around making the tools work well for users.
My vote would 100% be for the way