nologically label them (there are currently 65 points and this is labelled as in the file i've attached). However, what i'm actually after is to reformat these points into an x and y style grid.(a1, a2, a3, a4, a5)(b1, b2, b3, b4, b5)(c1, c2, c3, c4, c5)(d1, d2, d3, d4, d5) etc.Any ideas/help how this can be made possible would be great.Thanks in advance…
Chris,
Again the number of curves which SubCrv gives me is different from the actual curve on the surface! for example it gives me 80 curves in which there are 20 curves!
me in 19 different pipeline components. Marginally better, but I'll still need to do this operation approx. 80 times...gulp.
Here's a wishlist request for David: expose string inputs in the Geometry Pipeline for Layer and Name. If I had that, I could change one string to swap my whole geometry set! (My layers have names like "B1 red rail", "B1 blue rail" etc., then the next time I'll want "B2 red rail", "B2 blue rail" etc.)
BTW, I'm happy to script something in C# if it will help: maybe I could write something like the Geometry Pipeline that takes a string input for layer name? Hmmm...
…
ide into 80 branches, and 80 outputs of explode and 80 dispatches - its my nightmare. Is there any way to do this with parametric Number of brunches? …
GH) > then define (still in GH) some instance definition (or many: case variants) > then place it according some "policy" (3d point grid and the likes). Note: Only doable with code, mind (C# in my case).
Obviously you can skip the creation part and instruct GH to deal with instance definitions already listed in the Block Manager (say: find the block named "cell666_B3" blah, blah) ... but that means that you can only use them (meaning a rather "limited" parametric approach) and not make them from scratch (meaning a true parametric approach).
But I guess that you've tried the block way in the Rhino environment already. That said I use rather solely this approach in GH and yields quite manageable object collections - I would say "real-time" response (up to 20K instances) but I use dedicated Xeon E5 1630 V3 workstations (with NVida Quadros K4200 and up for the graphic response part of the equation) so the "performance" is rather a subjective thing.
Modifications:
easily doable with GH (on instance definitions at placing time: since you need only to scale them and not vary their topology).
Anyway post a portion of the R file.…