Hi xrok1 - yes there are potential problems either way. Sometimes I have to just kind of guess which problem will be more frequently run across and then avoid that one and live with the less frequent one.

Eventually I want to have some UI that will let you get in there and edit these history values directly, in this case with either placing another point above the curve's plane or by a specific numeric distance. That would be the general thing that would solve this.

One other idea that I had was if I left it as a point defined in history, that it might be a good signal when you select the input and output objects at the same time and move them, to transform the point values in history by moving them by the same distance. That would generally help with relocating some other kinds of history-related operations that work with points, like for example revolve. The points for the revolve axis in history can't easily be converted into some portable value unlike the extrusion distance.

- Michael

yes i like the idea of selecting input and output objects together to retain extrusion distance, or just selecting input curves alone to retain extrusion reference. this seems like it would be the most predictable and useful way to go.

P.S any plans to have some kind of mating relationships (concentric, parallel, distance) in the future?

> P.S any plans to have some kind of mating relationships (concentric,
> parallel, distance) in the future?

I haven't really thought very much about that...

It will probably be difficult for me to get into a full constraint solver type thing, but I think what you are talking about here could possibly be easier than that. It might be workable as a specialized transformation command. But it will probably take a while before I can get to that.

- Michael