Is there a future possibility of selecting two (say) pieces of flex track and colouring them, without making sections?
If I wish to have a metre piece of flex that is straight but curves for the last one third only, I have to create it from two pieces, one straight and one curved. It would be handy to colour them (or something) to illustrate that they are in fact a single piece when constructing. This may seem easy with two pieces but if the next two are similar then it becomes more difficult to remember which are which.

Maybe the (something) could be a way of finally joining the two pieces as one, without a join but retaining the shape?

Apologies for jumping on the thread - What you're proposing David would be pretty neat actually! 

But perhaps it'd be easier to have a script which could be run once an individual has completed the layout plan, it
would then do the merging of all flex-"bits" as necessary?

It seems to me that doing it on a case-by-case basis would be a time consuming process. 

Even if that's not what Donone needed - I do think this feature might come very handy indeed.

On my layout plan I've got loads of places where i've got little bits of flex that I used to connect pieces which I had built in another place, same for curves where I found it easier to build three or two sections of 45 degrees and connecting them despite the fact that I hadn't used a full-length of flex track. It would be a good clean-up exercise at the end to make sure the list with the number of tracks is more accurate.

It seems I have been to bed!
The reason I needed to join flex was slightly different than just economising on track and number of cuts, though I do like the additional idea of a massive roundup at the end. My reason was because, if you remember an earlier thread, I wanted to use Bezier to keep part straight and only bend the end.
Since that was not possible, I requested this. My fear is that the roundup at the end may not join the specific pieces 'chosen by me', it would be random or clockwise or anticlockwise probably.

I fear also that anything not involving the human element of 'brain' may leave several pieces say 20mm or so, or worse, dotted about. I also think the programming may be quite complex, analysing all the bits and deciding which to join if there are an odd number of pieces together. Several passes may be required and so we may not get a solution for some time. (Not being selfish, but half a loaf now etc. etc.)

I do like the new kind of join David. This would mean it could be re-broken and readjusted where my original suggestion would lose that.
It might be that the user prefers, certain lengths (which may be laying about) etc. etc. The brain is very good at deciding what is best in any given situation. It only requires the user to want to choose one particular join, to effectively prevent any automation.
Is there room for a possible compromise, a choice by the user, gaining the best of both worlds?

Good idea, but I suppose there are a few cases:

- One end straight, other end curved
- Two straight ends, curved in between
- Straight middle, curved at both ends

I'm not yet sure how to keep that 'as easy as possible'!
Just one marker is not good enough.

David.

Another occasion where I believe joining with your joints would be useful is when a piece of flex is required to do a nice neat 180 deg curve. Currently this can only be achieved to 90 deg. To do this out of one piece would require the same technique of splitting in half, make two 90 deg curves then rejoin.
...or have I missed something?