leave the path when extruding along a path

[grant_PD]

After I run the extrude along path tool, my path turns into a nurbs curve. Can the curve also be left behind as my original 2d curve?

[islandmon]

Or just use a duplicate curve for the path .

[grant_PD]

Well....yes. But one of the best features about VW is that 3d objects are derivatives of 2d objects. VW doesn't convert my rectangle into a NURBS curve when I extrude it. I just think it's inconsistent is all. How 'bout we compromise and give me a warning dialog asking me if I want a copy to remain after the conversion.

[Petri]

Grant,

You surely have a point here! Leaving a copy behind would not be kosher, though, in terms of consistency, so obviously the programmers should devise a way of zapping the poor user's data in such a way that the data could be recovered.

[P Retondo]

Grant, since you can extrude along a 3d path that is non-planar, your concept would limit the usefulness of the Extrude Along Path tool.

[Petri]

Pete,

Maybe one CAN, but if one DOESN'T, there is no justification for zapping the user's object.

[P Retondo]

Generally I'm in favor of maximizing the use of the 2d/3d interface. For an object like a roof, for example, which doesn't preserve the polygon it was generated from, I can see the logic of this kind of request perfectly. Roofs are by nature linked to the horizontal plane. In contrast, an "extrude-along-path" object could, to cite a couple of common examples, be a gutter (strong tie to the horizontal plane), or a stairs handrail (not so easily tied to a horizontal plane), or even an exhaust tailpipe.

Unless the extrude concept were distributed in the interface amongst a series of object-oriented PIOs (e.g., gutter tool, handrail tool), I don't see how the concept could be pragmatically implemented without losing some of the tool's power. The fact that a polygon is automatically converted to a NURBS curve at z=0 when using the extrude tool is a convenient feature, but to ask that the 2d poly be preserved in an edit space because of this convenience is asking the tail to wag the dog. If an extrude-along-path object were generated ONLY in such a way, that would be a different matter.

Granted, I can see the case for creating specific-use tools based on the generalized extrude command that would take advantage of the 2d/3d interface. Which, I admit, is another way of saying what Petri is pointing out.

[Petri]

but to ask that the 2d poly be preserved in an edit space because of this convenience is asking the tail to wag the dog.

No, not really. Think about the (hollow) solids. You can go deeper and deeper and finally you find the Unicorn, I mean the 2D object. I'd consider the overall interface of solid operations as a textbook example of simplicity in a very complex series of operations. Me dips me pitfff helmet every time I do them.

Now, if they could also find a way to have something solid inside the solids...