Taken from discussion started here (internal link). The issue of alignment of patches upon creation needs some TLC. Currently it's inconsistent and confusing -- some patches are created aligned up-down, others aligned with the current ortho view. Some decisions need to be made for less clear-cut cases. Please provide any thought out opinions on the matter below, then hopefully we can get a single consistent tracker entry out of it. ---- The request is that all patches be created axis-aligned from current ortho view. Currently, they're inconsistent in alignment, top down or sideways. What this would mean is, regardless of current alignment, whatever ortho viewport currently has focus (?) determines which way the patch is created: 1. Simple mesh: If looking "down"/vertically (in a global sense), the patch is created as if laying on the ground, as if it were a floor or carpet. If looking "sideways"/horizontally (in a global sense hereafter) the patch would be up on a side, facing the ortho came, as if it were a wall. Note: This patch already works as described. ---- 2. Bevel: If looking down, create the bevel on its "side." That is, looking in XY view, the mapper would see the curve bending 90 degrees. If looking horizontally, create the bevel "standing up" (as an arch). Thus, the mapper similarly sees the curve. Curved side up please (standing), as an arch, not down (sitting) as a bowl. Arches are much more common. In both views, the "curve is seen" by the mapper, not the "spine" of the patch. A benefit of this is that it immediately shows the mapper, "hey a curve to work with!", as opposed to "uh what is that rectangle with a line through it?" And the mapper can start shaping immediately. If they made it rotated to what they want, they can easily turn it without transforming through other axis or simply delete, rethink, and recreate it. Note: Currently, this does the opposite of this request; it instead shows the "spine" of a bevel in the active ortho. Yes, this conflicts with the previous tracker request for bevel creation, but that was operating under the assumption that bevels were the only patches that would see change in this matter, so "better than nothing." It was shortsighted, I admit. A single consistent system for all patches would be more beneficial and not confusing. ---- 3. Cone/Cylinder: We need a decision here. Are all cones and cylinders created "standing?" That is, longways up-down? Or should they be rotated with the view? To do so is more consistent with the request, and of course more functional. But, should they be axis-aligned with the ortho view (that is, looking down the length of the cone or cylinder), or anti-axis-aligned, which "shows the curve" as above for bevels? Whoever makes the most logical argument for one choice or the other gets a gold star. ---- 4. End caps: Currently creates them "laying on the side" regardless of ortho alignment. Suggestion is that they be oriented axis aligned with ortho view as with the request for bevels above. That is, the mapper always "sees the curve" from their current ortho view, upon creation. ------------------- Thoughts and opinions requested.