} (N=11) {0;1} (N=11) {0;2}(N = 11) {0;3}(N = 11) {0;4}(N = 11)
2. I run the Points that are coming out from the Divide Curve Components through the Path Mapper components with this definition:
{A;B} (i) > {A} (i)
3. I run data coming out from Path Mapper component through:
a) Parameter Viewer component and the result is:
{0} N=11 (data with 1 branches)
b) Point > Panel and the result is:
collection of 11 point (N=11) which is the exactly the same as the collection of point belonging to {0;4} (N = 11).
So, here is the question:
why the collection of points coming out from the Path Mapper {A;B} (i) > {A} (i) component is the same as the collection of points belonging to the curve {0;4}(N = 11) ?
Anyway ... It 's the first time I ask a question here... so I would like to thank you for what you do with your work! Thank you! You are really great!…
om frame -5 till frame -10 a frame spacing of 100mm is used,
etc.
Frame 0 is located on X=0 mm
Frame -5 will be on X=-500 mm
Frame -6 will be on X=(X of frame -5) -25 = -525 mm
Frame -11 wil be on X= ((X of frame -10) -10 = ?? mm
etc.
Cheers,
Bas…
First use a series component with start=1, step=42, count=3
Use the output to create a new series component with start=existingseries, step=1, count=11
Loop'. The fun part of the slower version is that you can see what it's doing while it's running. 'Fast Loop' gives no indication that it's working, so you want to test it with small numbers and be sure it's coded properly before bumping the iteration count up.
The GH profiler running the slow version showed between 1 and 1.5 seconds per loop, but the reality was more like ~10 seconds per loop toward the end of an 11 X 11 grid, or ~20 minutes total. It's easier to be patient because you know it's working.
The 'Fast Loop' finished the same grid in 1.6 minutes! An impressive improvement. I've been running it on a 30 X 30 grid (900 points) for ~23 minutes so far and see nothing yet. Not the ~12 minutes I had hoped for... Now 36 minutes on this loop for 900 points... hope it's not stuck. Not fast! Later - DONE!! Profiler says 59 minutes for 900 points but it was more like an hour and twenty minutes total. It succeeded, I have a single 'Closed Brep' from 900 extruded rings, baked to Rhino.
Another strategy to explore would be doing 'SUnion' on a smaller grid using the Anemone loop, then replicate it by moving it as needed to form a larger grid; then run the copies through another 'SUnion' loop. I went ahead and implemented that while waiting. It works and is fast! Started with 3 X 3 and ran the result again as 5 X 5 (9 X 25 = 225 total) in barely ~70 seconds!? Trying 36 X 36 now... 1,296 points appears to have succeeded in less than ten minutes! Though it seems to take quite awhile after the loop ends before control is restored to GH/Rhino. I'll let you do your own experiments and benchmarks.
I encapsulated the loop in a cluster called 'suLoop' (blue groups).
Internal of 'suLoop' cluster:
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 11:14pm on March 22, 2017
rve
10 curve
11 curve
12 curve
13 curve
...and I'd like to rearrange the order in which the curve are listed, to something like this:
{0,0,0}
0 curve
1 curve
8 curve
9 curve
10 curve
11 curve
2 curve
3 curve
4 curve
5 curve
12 curve
13 curve
6 curve
7 curve
I hope this makes sense.
Thank in advance for any advice,
John…
5 8, and then the following values are obtain as the last one (8) plus 3, then this last one (11) plus 5, and then this last one (16) plus 8, and then it starts again: 24+3, 27+5, 32+8...
Thanks
…
Added by Jesus Galvez at 5:17am on November 27, 2012