I think most of the logic operations feel quicker using the script component. I don't know if it has to do with the logic components. Maybe it's that it produces a lot of cluttering and you don't like to see a lot of components to do a simple task, even if it only took you some seconds to place them. Hopefully this will be solved when the clusters are rewritten. Sometimes i start to place components knowing exactly what i'm doing, but the next day when i open the definition its really hard to follow what i did the day before. Scott, about using scripting in grasshopper, for practical puroposes of course, go for it. As I said, use whatever takes the least amount of effort for what you're tyring to achieve. But think of the time it took for David Rutten to draw all those nice logic icons.
On Oct 31, 5:01 pm, David Rutten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 -
