visose: i tried to obtain the exact path structure because i have to match two different stream later. marc: thanks for the hint. i am still getting to know trees better but would really like see all this working without "dummy shifting" etc... i made it using "simplify" further upstream. i this specific case it worked. but there has to be a way to alter/modify tree structures. is there any i don't know of? i will go on observing and make my mind up about enhancements... thanks. frank
On May 8, 2:57 pm, Marc Syp <marc....@gmail.com> wrote: > Visose, FrankS - > > I've found that sometimes if my path structure changes the resulting > data no longer matches properly with data carried over from other > parts of the definition. I think this is perhaps the problem that > FrankS is experiencing. In those cases I have found that doing the > same operation on the other set of data works to match their paths up > again. For instance, if you've shifted your data and need to > reconnect it to the original data, you can put in a "dummy shift" for > the original data. That is, use the actual shift method given by > visose above, and then use it again on the same data but with an index > of 0, so that the data order stays the same but receives an addition > level of path structure. Your new shifted data will now match the > original data, and you should be able to do whatever operation you > intended on the matched set. > > I have to admit that this is a bit of a cobbled up workaround, and I'm > having a hard time understanding how path components should work so > that this kind of thing wouldn't be necessary. But for now it works. > > Marc > > On May 8, 12:45 pm, visose <vic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > what are you trying to do that you need them to be the same? maybe > > there's another way around it. > > > On May 8, 11:49 am, frankS <fffr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > ok, i am stuck again. > > > visose, taking a closer look at your suggestion i found out that i end > > > up with a sligthly different structure. > > > > (0;0;1) will be converted to (0;0;0;1) and so on. > > > accordingly, shifting this way will add on level of tree hierarchy. > > > anyway to avoid this? > > > > thanks, > > > frank > > > > On May 6, 12:36 pm, frankS <fffr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > wow, thanks visose for so much fast replies! > > > > i didn't figure the "param viewer" was useful for anything more than > > > > viewing. > > > > it makes path structure accessible/manageable. great! > > > > maybe it should change its name a bit to give a better hint. > > > > first suggestion: "param viewer/handler" > > > > would this make sense? > > > > > On May 6, 12:18 pm, visose <vic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > No need to flatten, besides that method will only work if you have one > > > > > item per branch. You can use the param viewer and tree branch > > > > > components to achieve > > > > > this:http://grasshopper3d.googlegroups.com/web/shiftbranch.jpg > > > > > > On May 6, 11:59 am, frankS <fffr...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > i am trying to shift branch structure, since there this no such > > > > > > component, i try it the following way: > > > > > > flatten the structure, > > > > > > shift the list, > > > > > > graft a new stucture from the shifted list... > > > > > > > starting with a structure containing 3 paths > > > > > > (0;0;0) > > > > > > (0;1;0) > > > > > > (0;2;0) > > > > > > > after grafting it ends up with > > > > > > (0;0;0) > > > > > > (0;0;1) > > > > > > (0;0;2) > > > > > > > screenshot > > > > > > here:http://grasshopper3d.googlegroups.com/web/shift_tree.jpg?hl=en&gsc=YI... > > > > > > > any idea how to rearrange this creating the same structure again? > > > > > > "simplifiy" doesn't seam to help... > > > > > > any advise much appreciated. > > > > > > frank- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
