[Bf-funboard] Re: removal of "add>mesh>Tube"

[GSR]

Hi,
psyborgue at mac.com (2007-04-01 at 2113.08 -0400):
> I really hate the removal of the "tube" option under "add>mesh".  I  
> use "add>Tube" a lot.  When I model a charachter I often use 8 sided  
> tubes for arms, legs, the neck, and pretty much any other extremity  
> (later stiching them together).  This forces me to keep the mesh  
> efficient.  It also lets me lay out UV's easily (while I model, in  
> sections).  Although I understand the reasoning behind adding a "cap  
> ends" option to the cylinder, it's a few more steps that I would  
> rather avoid given the frequency of my use of "tube" in my workflow.   
> Can we not have both?

I guess this is a good reason to not join Grid with Plane. Tho some
have proposed getting sizes for other primitives like Cube. If looking
for consistency, all should have sizing and division control.

Another difference I noticed is the name is always Cylinder, instead
of Cylinder or Tube depending if caps or not.

And once we are into changes, could Circle, Cylinder, Cone... be
rotated to match one axis with one vertex (probably +Y if you are in
XY view)? Or is there a reason to keep on with the "at 45" that only
clearly shows what happens for 4-sides case?

GSR