Tim, I disagree that it's reasonable to use a table of offsets at station points to loft through, especially at the bow and stem of vessels where they taper, for the reasons that I outlined above. In most use cases, TC won't deliver a satisfactory result by doing that. It's certainly possible for very sophisticated surface development programs like Rhino, which can define degree 32 spline surfaces, or Maya, or Alias Studio as used by car corporations, or for DelftShip or its predecessor Freeship, but those last two create subdivision surface hulls, not NURB, which don't interact well with associative or Boolean functions in TC or CAD generally. Most of us aren't using exotics, we're using generic CAD lofting functions like those provided by ACIS, Parasolid or OpenCascade, which will generally extrapolate degree 3 (maybe 4, if I haven't remembered the relationship between degree and order, one is greater by one than the other) spline surfaces through the V direction of a loft, which doesn't give that sort of control between stations. You could work around to some extent by changing the direction of the loft: if you dig into TC's spline functions, you'll find that you can draw curves of up to degree 9, which have a higher tension, resistance to kinking than curves of lower degree/order. Taking that into account, you could draw your hull using longitudinal profiles that could be smoother in the bow-to-stern direction. It might be easier to control a loft in the keel-to-gunwhales direction using longitudinal profiles. Tables of offsets are somewhat like NACA/NASA airfoil profiles in that they do give you definite points that the surface OUGHT to interpolate, but they don't take any account of the capacity of the tool that you're using to actually do that. That's why I recommend PolyCAD for hull development: it has functions dedicated to that.