Point - Ellipse - 2 moves along differing vectors. A line connecting the focuc points on each ellipse = equalling two lines . then divide thetwo lines into points. This is all of what I've already done. I am now trying to conncet the division (points) with connecting lines. How can this be done. ?
hi - thanks for the responses. however, you'll have to explain the entire right half of this definition (including the little spiral node above ellipse) for me to try to understand what is going on. you are working with an older build of grasshopper and our nodes don't look the same. .I would love to look closer at how you are solving it.
on the assumption that you are referring to the definition that I posted let me try to clarify. First, this was done on 7.055 and I am not aware that this has yet been superseded. The spiral component is the empty parameter component that will reference a curve. In this case it is used only so that I could disable the preview of the ellipse that includes the rather largish and distracting origin plane. I am not sure where the right half of the definition begins so I best start early.
Ellipse and its foci are all move Y-ward.
The moved ellipse is then moved z-ward.
Since I have moved the ellipse as well as its two foci, I need to have access to both the ellipse and these two points.
Exiting from the series component will be the numbers 1 and 2 that indicate the two focal points of the ellipse.
Now lines can be drawn between the original ellipse and the moved ellipse.
These lines are divided.
At this point the structure of the data is such that connecting a line only replicate the two lines already drawn since it will connect two rows of 11 points in this case. What is needed is an arrangement of 11 rows of 2 points (the parameter viewer is a reliable friend). To do this, I could have used the Path mapper, but now David has given us the Flip Matrix component that does this with ease.
Now a polyline will produce the rung-like lines connecting the points on each line.
I hope this makes sense and does not seem overly pedantic.
I'm sure it is a fine explanation. I am just in the wrong line of business.
Thanks for your effort. I have changed the methodology I am using to construct that thing (the parametric stair) and will come back to your definition if later it seems to be the right thing to do.