Hey Damien, Before you and David get carried away I just wanted to follow along by giving the "hard way" a try. If I'm understanding correctly from your example, the image below would represent tree conversion from option 1 to option 3 (but only for a finite number of surfaces, 3 in this case). If such a routine could be made to function similar to the current data matching settings within a given component, that would be very versatile. Giving equal priority to data matching and tree sorting would seem to make sense.
Note to David: Merge Multiple with 3 inputs seems to be misbehaving. It's making the correct tree structure but it seems to be losing data. http://grasshopper3d/web/string_thru.jpg -taz On Mar 29, 12:05 pm, damien_alomar <dominos...@gmail.com> wrote: > Rather than take up an old thread I figured I'd start a new one to > keep things clean. I think it would be a great advantage to have > several different options for the path structure of a given > component. The first component that came to mind was the Divide > surface component, so I put together an example as to how several > different structures might work. > > http://grasshopper3d.googlegroups.com/web/multiplePathOutputs_divSrf.... > > The first option depicted is simply what we have now, so no real need > to explain that one. The second option is adding an extra branch per > U row or V column (per U column is in the example). This would allow > for the data contained by each branch to represent individual rows or > columns of points rather than having all of the points generated from > a given surface all together. > > The third option is possibly slightly more complex, but could be very > useful and very hard to assemble manually. What the third option does > is "strings through" all of the index points, so that all of the U(n)V > (n) points for the surfaces could be connected easily. Imagine a > curve or polyline going from an given index on surface A, then surface > B, all the way to surface N. This means that the data within the top > most branches has as many elements as the surfaces within that path. > > Hopefully this makes sense as to how these different pathing options > could actually be structured, and hopefully the usefulness of these > options is clear. > > Best, > Damien
