> > 3. Is there any plan to have components output paths in multiple ways? > > (ie its not a "this path" or "flat" situation, but a number of > > different pathing structures that could be created by a given > > component...ie I could think of 4-5 different ways to path the output > > of the Divide Surface component) > > Now sure yet. I'm hoping to avoid making components even more complex > than they already are. > > But if it turns out that this is needed, then so be it.
I don't think it necessarily needs to add to any complexity of the component itself, just an extra option within the context menu of an output node. At the moment you already have the beginings of this with the Flatten option. I'm just asking you to take it to the next level. The reason I feel that this is important is because there's much more power and opportunity within the code (and especially within your hands), and I think alternate pathing schemes would be better handled through code than through components. I do think the right components may be able to reconstruct different pathing schemes, but the question is at what cost? It may be take quite a considerable number of components and require some "hard coded" expressions within those components. I'll work on a diagram or two for how some of these schemes might look for the Divide surface component, as I think this is probably one of the components that would have the most options for different pathing schemes. For a typical component though, I don't think there'd be much more than a flattened and non-flattened version. Some may have 2 options for pathing plus the flattened. -Damien
