Open / closed polysurf

 From:  Michael Gibson
1447.5 In reply to 1447.3 
Hi Steve,

> For your application to be "Powerful, accurate" do you not
> think such info is required in current release?

Nope, as far as I can tell it is not required - the evidence for this is that it just has not come up before in the beta release which lasted for about a year and half.

It is not difficult to add the script interface that will enable this, but I'm not planning on releasing any updates for version 1.0 for very minor issues, because it takes quite a bit of work to manage update releases.

If there are more major issues reported that force me to issue an update to 1.0, I can include this at that time. But right now there are no major issues that are forcing this at this time.

This would have been an easy thing to add if you mentioned it in the beta period before the final 1.0 release. As it is now, you are asking for it after the 1.0 release has been finalized.

> I look at MOI as a standalone product, I am not putting forward a
> "wish" but what I think is currently missing from such a release.
> (with full respect and IMHO).

Asking for some feature that is not present in the current program is pretty much the exact definition of a "wish"!

There are plenty of useful things that did not make it into version 1.0, if I waited until version 1.0 was perfect and had every conceivable missing thing in it before releasing it, it would be delayed for a long long time.

I can certainly understand if these particular missing features make MoI unsuitable for you - in that case you will need to wait until version 2.0 before it will be more suitable for your purposes.

> I will say, I do like this program. I have attempted many forms
> (from loft / bridge / sweep) that would crash a number of programs,
> yes, on purpose,

I'm glad this part is working well for you - yes stability was a major major focus for version 1.0 - many of the things you are asking for were postponed from version 1.0 so that some other basic foundational stuff could be handled first instead.

I mean, would you prefer to have a "what" type thing functioning, but have unreliable functions and crashing instead?

It just is not feasible from a scheduling perspective to implement all things all at once. I had to be pretty ruthless in a lot of ways in trimming down certain features to make an initial release feasible.

If too much was trimmed down for you, that will get solved in future releases.

> instead, MOI gives me a possible example.(nice co-processor~ is that yours?)

I'm not sure which part you are asking about here?

Anyway, don't get me wrong, I don't take any offense if you decide that MoI is not suitable for you in its current state.

- Michael