> usually you're better off building things as larger surfaces and instead cutting pieces of the big extended surface off rather than trying to build things in little bits at a time.
> That will still generally be a better way even at the time that there are continuity controls - ...only adjust shapes at the very edges of a surface, and it's pretty easy for surfaces to have a kind of bunching up in form near the end even if they are technically fully curvature continuous at their edges.


I definitely get you on those points.

So what would be nice to have the NetworkSrf tool and some kind of "super point-cluster/surface/de-buncher smoother" tool... ;-)

Yes, I agree with your insight that a more 'whole'-istically designed surface is a "better" designed surface. And I'm glad you're prime directive with MoI is the KISS principle, which is why it's so attractive to artistic folks like myself in the first place.
Intuitive controls should be preferred over complex ones.

Case in point, with what you said above about the subtle control of the 1D/2D scaling handles. It's more efficient in the long run to be able to do commands with subtle mouse movements than to have to constantly check boxes and tweak settings and depress complex key combos.

With that said - your implementation of (on view) interactive spacing and distance choosing is an absolute Godsend.


Well thank you very much Michael for taking the time to explain and expound these concepts to me! I certainly appreciate the thoughtful feedback, and I think this sentiment goes for many more of us that enjoy using MoI.