muffed the link... http://grasshopper3d.googlegroups.com/web/string_thru.jpg
On Mar 29, 2:56 pm, taz <tzez...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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
