here are my questions.
1. The difference in general attractor transition is that, i only want the points are moving toward x axis, so if i just have ONE curve to distinguish, which is'nt the problem to find points location are in the right of left side of curve, but if i have TWO or THREE curves need to be distinguished, that is totally confused to me!
2. The points near curve which moved too big, how can i make it more equal?
3. I hope all the points can stay in the square boundary.
If anyone can give me some hint, i would be very appreciate with that.
thanks a lot!!
Shaun
…
see in my bottom post image there is only one isocurve showing in U and V.
In Grasshopper there's no surface rebuild? Well, the same old Grasshopper Patch command will let you specify spans I guess, to make a surface from a planar curve, but it won't work for things with holes since they will just fill in!
You can recreate a surface painfully by untrimming, adding many UV points, rebuilding from those points, then retrimming with the original surface info, but the retrimming simply fails.
If you make a planar surface from a curve in Rhino, you end up with utterly no point editability:
No wonder my CreatePatch tests were a failure. The starting surface could not be distorted except in the extreme case of moving four corner points!
I have no idea how to successfully rebuild a surface akin to the Rhino rebuild command. It's great to be able to prototype in Grasshopper, but with Python I can rebuild easily ( http://4.rhino3d.com/5/rhinocommon/?topic=html/M_Rhino_Geometry_Surface_Rebuild.htm ;), so I guess I should start a collection, like peter, of little script components for prototyping with.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:18am on February 26, 2016
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013
milar once its default data managment techniques are exceeded thus forcing a new address index to be inserted. Its all just so unnecessarily particular and finickity.
If addresses are added when forced to, why not just have that as the default behaviour in the first place? Its not so much 'one size fits all' as postulated previously, but more one size fits 80% of cases and in the remaining 20% of cases you're going to be a slave to your definition as constant manual management will be required just to control the thing.
My final point:
circle with points should have a list address of {0}
multiple circles with points should have list address of {0;0}
multiple circles in multiple locations with points should have list address of {0;0;0} etc
I really dont see how that is any less consistent for highly complex data strucutres. To any rational individual this is predicable and follows a logic. What advantage is there in fixing the address at {0;0} yet still allow for new address sequences to be added firther down stream? Logic is the key thing to keep in mind here, not peculiar nuances only the initiated can ever be aware of.…