Feature Request: 2.5D Cursor Snapping

Just something I thought would come in handy with my latest model. Basically the idea is to add 2.5D options to the snapping menu that would allow you to snap the cursor/selection only along the view plane instead of a full 3D snap. For example:

Here is a front view of a scene with a cube, and the 3D cursor some distance above it.

http://uploader.polorix.net//files/19/2_5D1.jpg

Then you would go into top view, select a vertex, and do a 2.5D snap cursor-to-selection.

http://uploader.polorix.net//files/19/2_5D2.jpg

The cursor snaps to the selected vertex on the current view plane. (The XY plane in this example.) The cursor is still the same Z height that it was above the cube in front view, though.

http://uploader.polorix.net//files/19/2_5D3.jpg

This is good.
In general,another thing related to that is the possibility to move 2d(depending on view)everything,for example proportional edit on side view for head could be cool,you use propotional edit to move the points,as is now the fact that have different z(from view)coordinates makes it not possible,because you have to do bigger radius that influence points not wanted.

Sometimes you can use “cursor snap to grid” for this.

I don’t see how.

In the example you gave, if you click on the vertex, the 3D cursor will move to that position, but only within the view plane (it will stay at the same z position). Assuming you clicked relatively close to the vertex, snapping the cursor to the grid would produce the desired result.

This, of course, only works if the vertex in question is on a grid intersection. So your idea is still good for situations where that isn’t true, but in a lot of modeling (mechanical, for instance), snapping to the grid should work.

This feature already exists in part :
set the alternate transform orientation to view
use the magnetic snaps with a constraint to move parallel the viewing plane (shift-z, shift-z)
That’s it.

Would it really be that much more work to snap the cursor to the vertex and then adjust the z-depth?

In my example, no it wouldn’t be. But that was a very simple example.