Hi Jesse,

> I especially like the work you've done on positioning with the "base circle"

Yeah that part seems to be working really well, a bunch of parameters such as diameter, center point, vertical offset are basically derived from that circle and it seems to be easier to just be able to pick the circle to get all that stuff rather than making them parameters that you would have to enter one by one.

This also allows to have some files set up that are basically "libraries" of stones that have their base circles included so they are all ready to select and place.

If you want to include another circle as an object to duplicate (like the actual girdle circle or whatever), then just select the base circle by clicking on it first before selecting the other circle. So if there are multiple circles, the one that was selected first gets taken as the base circle.


> Could prong placement relative to gemstone placement
> be something for future development?

Yeah, I think so - prong placement and also some way to control changes in size sound like areas that would be useful to add to this tool in v3.

I think I'd probably like to focus on stone placement first though, and try to get that nailed down before attempting something for prongs.

The first step will be to see if the current one gives you the result you would want for uniform sized stone placement or if there needs to be some tune-ups just for that part to start with. Then next after that (in v3) I think would be to talk more about changing sizes of stones and get something for that, and then after that would be prongs I think.



> Is it because it has history enabled that it's a little slow to calculate?

No, it's not because of that - it's just due to the nature of the problem that is being solved. There is not a simple immediate way to find the solution for this case, it has to be done with what is called an "iterative solver", which basically repeatedly tests a whole bunch of points along the curve and gradually narrows in to find the right spot. Right now my iterative solver mechanism is not tuned up so much to be fast, it's more tuned up to try to get an answer and to be accurate.

This function won't work with history currently, but it is still tweakable because it works like Fillet, where you stay in the command and can alter the spacing to different values and see the results update until you hit "Done" (or right-click) to signal you are finished.

- Michael