It is cheating. Nobody said cheating was bad though. If it makes you feel any better, every time somebody needs to resort to scripting to do something... I feel like a failure.
-- David Rutten Robert McNeel & Associates On Oct 31, 5:27 pm, Splash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Now that is starting to sound like philosophy. A treatise titled, > “Critique of Pure Grasshopper ” > > I have seen a project or two that they used Grasshopper, with a little > scripting. The programmers could have done it all in Scripting. But > Grasshopper became the interface that the designers could use and > interact directly with the design realtime. > > By the way I updated the file on the group. It seemed that some were > having trouble reading it. > > - Scott > > On Oct 30, 4:02 pm, visose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That's cheating! :P > > I thought the fun part was to try to do as much as possible with the > > components without having to fall back to scripting. For practical > > purposes sure, i find myself actually using the function component to > > avoid using a list of other vector, scalar, etc. components. But > > wheres the line? I'm afraid if i learn too much vb.net i'll end up > > ditching grasshopper and installing visual studio. I guess the line is > > what takes the least amount of effort for what you are trying to > > achieve. > > > On Oct 30, 10:21 pm, Splash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Ok, here is a super simple sorter. I found if I use a List data type > > > in the code. I noticed David using those to inclrease the number of > > > outputs on a component. I can load up the output with multiple objects > > > on each loop. > > > > It is much cleaner now: > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/grasshopper3d/web/Alternate%20Sort%20c... > > > > On Oct 27, 11:17 am, visose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Sorry when i say "...with another list that has 0.1 as the step > > > > size..." i mean with another series component. I really miss the edit > > > > button in this forum. I guess it's not possible with newsgroups. > > > > > On Oct 27, 7:07 pm, visose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > heh, actually i had it with the merge streams component, but i removed > > > > > them just to make it look smaller. but you are right, better use the > > > > > merge component so you don't have to know which list you linked > > > > > first. > > > > > About multiple lists, you could substitute the number parameter that > > > > > has 0 and 0.1 with another list that has 0.1 as the step size and the > > > > > number of lists you want as the number of values to output (or 0.001 > > > > > if you have more than 10 lists). If all the lists are the same size > > > > > you only need one length component. > > > > > > On Oct 27, 6:46 pm, taz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > viscose, > > > > > > > I like your stiching solution. > > > > > > > It might be a good idea to combine the lists with a Merge component > > > > > > before sorting (for clarity), otherwise the first value of the > > > > > > stiched > > > > > > list will correspond with whichever list was first attached to Sort. > > > > > > > But I still like the minimalist approach for only 2 lists... > > > > > > > taz > > > > > > > On Oct 27, 12:50 pm, Splash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > That is very creative. I like the way your tagged the second > > > > > > > series > > > > > > > as 0.1. > > > > > > > > This method could be used to sort as many different lists as you > > > > > > > need. > > > > > > > > Thanks.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
