A lot of jiggery-pokery with magnets, for that.  But thank you.  It's been an easier process than comparing V3 and V1, because I have a bit more flexibility in the process due to the fact that I'm building a new mesh base.

I've mainly used the .pyd shrinkwrap for the above.  I think it shows how the results from that are better than those from the "classic" TDMT... so far.

And... this silly sub-project is going to send me off on UVs again.  The UV handling in the posted TDMT is completely knackered.  I'm going to have to try to make it work.  That has me wondering: do you think it would be at all advantageous to be able to gather the parametric coordinates for a mesh, using the .pyd?  Could 2D parametric coords help us improve something like 2D UV handling?  Is that something you've tried in your own explorations of the area?  No rush on an answer.  Just add that to the list of silly Cage questions, for when you have a bit more time....  I need to post such thoughts when I have them, or they'll get lost altogether.

===========================sigline======================================================

Cage can be an opinionated jerk who posts without thinking.  He apologizes for this.  He's honestly not trying to be a turkeyhead.

Cage had some freebies, compatible with Poser 11 and below.  His Python scripts were saved at archive.org, along with the rest of the Morphography site, where they were hosted.