Hi andras, yes I would definitely like to have texturing in the future!

But it is hard to say right now if it will fit in to v3 or not, it is possible but too early yet to know specifically.

There are a lot of issues to consider - texturing that follows bends and folds in surfaces is not necessarily the same kind of thing as a 2D hatch pattern.

Do you think that it would be good to be able to give a "fill" property on closed curves to define that kind of 2D stuff? Or would it be good to just focus on doing it on surfaces only?

- Michael

<Do you think that it would be good to be able to give a "fill" property on closed curves to define that kind of 2D stuff? Or would it be good to just focus on doing it on surfaces only?>

Yes, just a fill property on closed curves as 2D stuff. Anyway I didnt think about folding and bendig that means proplems, yes. But only for a 2D part would be proper solution for sections and layout plans. But! Maybe there are some issue with styles in this case. If I define a style for a "plane" and then define a "fill" as well finally I have got 2 kind of style...? Or "fill" woud be equal with "a type of style" ?
I think that a multiple or "sub"style system would be better because if in the future the section "script" or "command" will be available the automatic generator get the data from "style" system and when it generate fills from the cutted elements it get the "fill type" from the secondary slot.

Hi andras, yes that is a pretty big issue to be decided, whether things like fills go as a property of a style (which makes it kind of a "preset" which can then be more easily applied to many objects and also edited in one place to change), or whether it is a property that gets applied to an object individually.

It's also possible to have both, where a style could maybe have a set of "default" properties including a fill set with the style, but also allow objects to override it. This may make for a somewhat more complicated UI though, which is kind of bad. But it may be worth it for the flexibility it would offer.

Those kinds of trade-offs with "more flexibility" being the benefit, but "more complex UI" being the cost are difficult areas to work on, which tend to take me some time to analyze and plan.

- Michael

using two way is very complicated I think because after two weeks from project start we could get 1000 modification sometime. and searching where is the fill atribute and what is the actualy one is very annoying :)

some cases:
1.,
We have got a layered wall with three components (structure, insulation, plaster)
the whole wall is one Object. but the three components have sparate fill sign.
In this case the fill atribute is better for Styles eaches.
2.,
We have got a layered wall with three components (structure, insulation, plaster)
the whole wall is one Group. but the three components have sparate fill sign.
In this case the fill atribute is better for Objects eaches.

It is really dificult it depends on a lot of things mainly the program structure I gues. :S
But my my opinion that using with only one place Object OR Style.