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

[Michael Crawford]

On Apr 1, 2007, at 9:35 PM, GSR wrote:

> 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?

eeh.  Personally I like the one click simplicity (particularly for  
"circle") which i use a lot.  What would be handy is to have more  
aligning controls.  Anybody ever used the Wings option "put on" or  
its alignment options?  Sure you can accomplish most stuff with  
cursor gymnastics, but it's easier (and more straightforward) in my  
opinion to have a dedicated "align" command.  Maybe an align menu  
(align to>vertex normal, face normal, edge normal, Object centre,  
custom) for example.  A user could click the object, then "align to  
vertex normal, specify an axis (X, Y, Z, custom(user then selects  
either two vertices, an edge, or two edges (midpoints connected like  
wings))), specify that axis's "up" via a point, then specify a vertex  
on the target object, then specify it's up direction.  Mind you, this  
is very un-"blender-like", and I'm not sure how people will react to  
this suggestion.