well,
I think, if the operators for height and size are added automatically, if a heighfield is imported, and if they would have standard values that match the way, the terrain is handled without them, it would make the whole process faster, without loosing any advantage of seperating them.
The alpha channel should be separated from the breakup, and be named "Alpha" or "Mask", and the this mask should have as standard size the size of the terrain and fit automatically. Changing the size of the terrain should be automatically change also the alpha. So, best way would be, to express the size a factors (10-0.1) of the original terrain.
I think, this should not make that much work.
The only thing, with my little expierence of TG2, is the camera. I understand, that is has its orientation to the univers, not to a planet. May be, it would simplify all, if you can choose at start up, or somewhere, to set the world as univers or a one planet world. In a one planet world, the old TG2 tracking should be possible. I did not like that camara tool at once, but the longer I used it, I found it more and more powerful compared to a 3D view.
If now placing of objects would be done in this preview (with a zoom please) it would be really simple work.
In general, it seems to me, that the naming could cause problems.
For creating a heightfield, why should I use shader, was the first I hought. Shader are for the terrain after it is created, for the rendering. And for what I need a "reflective shader" when I am creating a terrain?
On the other side, if now is time to shade, what does the alpine shader there, I found in it no colour or distribution.
So, I mean, if the functions appear only where they belong and are sensful and named the way they work, for example "layer", "map", "functions", "displacements" and are grouped, it would all be much easyer.
Four weeks sounds long for that, but that would be not so easy. I am sure, the naming is in your thinking exact how you want to name. And I am aware, that naming and expectations of naming depend on personal preferences and often also on the other softwares, which are used.
And that is all I meant. I have found with GeoControl, that sometimes simply changing the naming of a tool or control can enhace the acceptance dramatically and that every control should have a sensful start value.