I've been following the development of Nick Kallen's Plasticity via his YouTube channel [0] for some time now, and I've been using it throughout its public beta. The repo is here [1].
As a longtime Blender (with HOps + Boxcutter) user, I've found Plasticity to be a wonderful experience that emphasizes focus on design and form rather than managing topology. It feels precise without the 'clunkiness' I've encountered with traditional CAD software.
Maybe I'm misreading the tone of your comment - but is that a bad thing? Reframing the approach to a problem, to state-of-the-art results; that strikes me as nothing if not progress. Don't mean to come across as negative here -- I just don't see why anyone would control those variables.
You list reasons why text-to-image is easier than unconditional image gen - but isn't that the point? They're both under the umbrella of image generation, which is ultimately pushed forward.
As a longtime Blender (with HOps + Boxcutter) user, I've found Plasticity to be a wonderful experience that emphasizes focus on design and form rather than managing topology. It feels precise without the 'clunkiness' I've encountered with traditional CAD software.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/@nickkallen1/videos
[1] https://github.com/nkallen/plasticity