I asked for something like this some time back. One of the most troubling aspects of MOI is, what I call, spurious endpoints. This includes "intersections". If I am zoomed out to a reasonable level for the modeling in progress, I may try to pick an Endpoint, but there may be two or even several points that might be chosen because they are very close together -- but not the same point. And choosing the wrong point has consequences. I move the cursor around a point and watch the coordinates to see if they change slightly. In some cases it may only be that the change is 0.001-unit. To make certain that I'm getting the right point, I must continually zoom in close enough to see what is going on. I understand that, to some extent, these things are unavoidable, but there just seem to be too many "points" that come out of nowhere and create ambiguity. Given what I've said, the trouble with trying to fix these things is that the program would have to first identify which point is the right one! Michael also told me that there is the issue of tolerance: How close together is close enough to be considered part of a problem that needs to be corrected? What might be a more practical option would be to get a "red flag" if we choose a point, and there are other possibilities 'near by' (whatever that means). If there is no red flag warning, then we would know that we had a good point. With a red flag, we would know to zoom in and check what is going on. As it is, we often have too many choices and it is very easy to pick the wrong one if we are not very diligent. I think that trying to fix these things after-the-fact is a can of worms.
|
