, a1200)}) Is there any way I can make this list into {a1, a2, a3, a4, -a5, -a6, -a7, -a8, a9, a10, a11, a12, -a13, ..... , a1200} ? ( 4 positive signs then 4 negative signs and so on) - alternating every nth in general.
or
2. Is there any way (workaround) to get negative angle value from 2 vectors? I know 'ANGLE (of 2 vectors)' component by itself doesn't work and I know why too. I have feeling that the reflex angle output might be useful but again, matter of list manipulation.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Hyo
…
CA, DA, DC)Two of those diagonal lengths are obviously redundant but they allow you to simply shift the array to get at different rotational permutations. This makes the search for the nearest mean a bit more straightforward since, in the context of panel clustering, you'd need to consider all rotational permutations of each one.…
Added by David Reeves at 5:26am on November 9, 2014
a working solution with replacing this line of code with:
Dim charList As New List(Of Char)(charArr)
Is this because of a version incompatibility (I'm using Rhino 4.0, and GH 0.8.0062)? Just curious.
Regards,
JJ…
f the mesh was self-intersecting everywhere. So instead I used Millipede (isosurface) to get the same undulations, but ignore the complex 'folds', you can see the difference in cross section thickness. I then tessellated it with the inverse pattern of the outer surface.
To make it a single 3d printable mesh, i just deleted a single face on inner and outer skin, then lofted the naked edges. (creating a tiny hole through the model). Therefore creating a single mesh that folds in on itself, not sure if there is a better way of defining the space between two meshes as the solid area...
Full GH (Kangaroo - Meshmachine - Weaverbird - Millipede)
Special thanks to Laurent Delrieu for his interesting offset mesh method that i based my approach on.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/offset-mesh-problems-with-3d-mesh-with-weaverbird…
Added by Nick Tyrer at 5:25am on December 10, 2015
g these times itself). If it works on selection alone, it would probably implement faster.
Theoretically, does this mean the total solving time of the definition is the 'chain of components' that takes the longest time? In the picture above, it would be the chain consisting 'point-curve-divideDistance'?
Because that still adds up only to 97%, I am assuming the Point and Slider component start solving in parallel, and the two Divide components also start solving in parallel?…