Hi Michael,

I am not biased towards any (hidden) fitting mechanism. I just like to have an accuracy under the reasonable amount of control.


>>Some construction methods do generate exact results and don't have
>>a refitting process in them at all, for example Loft with "Exact profiles",
>>extrusions or Revolve.

Does it mean that loft command doesn't mess with any kind of tolerances at all? In other words, when I loft a set of curves then scale those curves and loft it once again, both of those resulting surfaces should have the same number of control points?


>>The results are just too dense.

That's a question whether it's caused by "failure" of fitting-based algorithm or if it is just necessary to have such a number of control points in order to desribe given shape accurately.


>>any examples of things where the relative tolerance was causing problems.

How can I recognize it is causing problems? It will be "inaccurate". That's all. (exactly speaking, there will be no chance to figure out how accurate it is).
Okay. I guess MoI wasn't supposed to get on in aeronautical industry, designing wind turbine or something like this... and I am quite happy with Rhino to make such weirdnesses as this...


Petr


ps: I am sending you a file with a very complex profile curves via e-mail. You can use it to see a difference between lofting in MoI (Normal | Exact) and Rhino (Normal | Do not simplify) and for testing modificated network command.