I’d like to suggest an improvement for _CageEdit.
Right now, the cage density is fixed when you create it, so if you want more detail after a rough deformation, you have to create a new cage, which is inconvenient and often inaccurate.
I propose a new command, _SubdivideCage, that would let you increase the number of control points on an existing cage while keeping its current deformation. This would allow a workflow similar to ZBrush: start with a rough shape, then gradually refine it.
This is just an example I worked on today using _CageEdit. For example, in the highlighted area, I wanted to add more control points to stretch and refine the model, but I would have to create a new cage, which no longer matches the current deformation.
By the way, this is not for scripting. I’m using _CageEdit just for quickly editing existing models. I want to adjust the shape fast without recreating the whole cage. If you set too many control points from the start, editing becomes very slow and inconvenient. It’s much more practical to start with fewer points and add more later for detailing when needed.
It would be great to at least allow creating a new cage based on the existing one while keeping the current shape.
I’ve wanted to make this request for a long time, I just never got around to it until now.
It would be great for complex-shaped models, for example medals, to be able to create a cage not just from a box as a base, but from a custom shape.
At least it could take a curve as a base and use it as an extrusion. This extruded shape could then be used as the cage, so you don’t have to perform operations in empty, untouched areas.
Just to clarify, in this example the mesh is very dense. On such a high-poly mesh, InsertEdge and slidedge will work, but local changes may be minimal and harder to control.
Just thinking out loud: what if it was possible to use two cages on the same model simultaneously - one with a coarse lattice for the overall shape, and another denser one for detailed refinements.
Unfortunately, the default history hierarchy doesn’t allow this. Changing the dependent (“captive”) object breaks the whole relationship.
I also wondered if it could work to stack a denser cage on top of a coarser one. But it seems RhinoCommon doesn’t currently support this. Still, it could be a very useful temporary solution.
