algorithmic modeling for Rhino
This definition is attempting to apply several radii (randomly generated within a specified domain) to a series of pipes using the Pipe Variable component.
It works for the most part (see the attached definition below), but changes to the number of radii or the maximum/minimum radius cause some of the pipes to twist upon themselves rather than transition smoothly from one radius to the next.
Is there something like the 'align sections' option on the loft component that will prevent this twist? Or am I missing something more obvious?
Is it "all in one package" that you think is elegant?
My thoughts are a little different when an algorithm is elegant.
It's a matter of choice whether or not to buy a ready-made product(regardless of you know about how it works) or make your own component of customized algorithm.
Anyway, as far as I know, "peacock" plug-in has a user object(Pipe Custom) which has similar functionality.
Well you already pointed out one excellent example; the Pipe Variable component's built-in round cap functionality avoids the complicated loft/sphere connection you mentioned. As I said, the workaround you suggested was one that I considered. But if a component takes the place of an entire logical process and addresses some of the complexities that arise from working that process out step by step, I'd call that component a more elegant solution.
Regardless, my question was whether there was an error in the logic of the posted definition. Thanks for the Peacock recommendation.
If you are looking for a tool when you have to hit something, the stone that is rolling on the floor is, in a sense, a ready-made product.
If a component can not function beyond expectations, there are three ways to handle that sort of situation.
If you're lucky, you'll find a third party program with a better component. Or there is a way to badger to the developer to make up for the missing features.
If both do not work, the last thing is to create a custom component for yourself.
I don't need this explained to me, and you're being needlessly patronizing in assuming that I do.
My question was specifically about whether my definition had a problem I wasn't seeing, and while I appreciate your eagerness to help, I wasn't looking for a workaround. Nor do I need to be lectured on how achieve desired results in Grasshopper; you're not the only person on this board that is experienced with the software.
If you don't like my help and want to check with other people to see if your definition works well, then, create a new posting. Good luck.
I'll just clarify this one last time.
As I've said repeatedly, I appreciate your attempt to help, as well as the Peacock suggestion, which actually did help. So thank you again.
I was asking a specific question, and your initial reply was a workaround that did not address that question. I was not asking for a workaround, nor did I intend to get into a philosophical debate about what constitutes an elegant solution. You are entitled to your opinion on that front, as am I, and the implication that I'm wrong because I disagree with your opinion (or because you mistakenly assume I don't know how something works) is condescending and patronizing.
With regard to creating "a new posting," I'll thank you not to tell me what to do. I have no doubt that you are very knowledgeable on these subjects, but you have no standing to dictate anyone else's actions here.