pen Brep"; I didn't know it worked on flat surfaces. And I think it's only fair to include in your benchmark the considerable time 'SUnion' takes in this example: 21.9 seconds for 121 rings and likely much more with 400 or 1,000+ rings.
Then I noticed the pattern doesn't match. Checked the circles and they are the same. The distance between them, however, is different: 7 instead of 6. When I change that value to 6, the Python fails badly. All the holes and gaps are gone, which destroys the pattern:
I can't do the "two phase" approach on an 11 X 11 grid, but I can do 6 X 6 and 2 X 2 to get a 12 X 12 grid (40 'SUnion' operations) in 28 seconds total. That beats your benchmark of ~37 seconds for an 11 X 11 grid, if you include the 'SUnion' in your code.
…
6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 24, 26, 28, 30, etc
In addition to the components in the attached file, I have also tried using Cull Index but that did not do much. I tried using a number slider set to whole numbers with the range equal to the values I have set up in the integer, but it just increases the size by 1 every time. Any help on steps in the right direction would be great thanks.…
output will show a tree with 3 branches of 4 integers each that I can pass on to other components. What is the best way to do it?
I have tried creating a tree and using a for loop to do so, but it didn't work.
Thank you for your help.
…