{0} Branch Addressing, Maintaining Tree Structure through simplify even when only operating on one branch?

How do you make sure that the initial branch address is maintained through simplify?

Working on:

{0}

{1}

But only working on Branch {0} on its own in an operation which uses simplify. Makes new branches, that is with one digit address, i.e. {0}{1}{2} and ignores its {0} address - This then creates a branch that already exists but are not being used until later on.. The new {1} will clash with the original {1} branch when I bring the assembly back together.

Q. Is there a way to graft up, so that the principle branch is maintained?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Andrew Heumann on October 25, 2017 at 8:34am

dont simplify

Permalink Reply by Andrew Heumann on October 25, 2017 at 8:35am

didn't you read my laws? :-p

http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/data-structure-adapting-d...

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Sheridan on October 25, 2017 at 8:36am

lol easier said than done -

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Sheridan on October 25, 2017 at 8:37am

It seems there are too many variables in the cases I am using. Input variables. Uncontrollable variables, so I want to be able to constrain the variables. I thought that keeping the entire tree intact but leaving branches empty might be the way forward?

Permalink Reply by Andrew Heumann on October 25, 2017 at 8:48am

That's conceivable. But simplify doesn't do you any favors - it does nothing to how trees WORK (except causing problems in variable tree scenarios). Important to note that when matching trees GH actually ignores their branch paths entirely - it just goes one by one through them. so {0} {1} {2} in one input and {0;0;0} {0;0;1} {0;0;2} in another will work just fine.

Permalink Reply by Andrew Heumann on October 25, 2017 at 8:49am

And again feel free to post an example - I'm happy to show you my version of a best-practice approach :)

Permalink Reply by Andrew Heumann on October 25, 2017 at 8:39am

I'm being flippant - but I'm serious. If you stop using simplify you'll be much happier. It takes a little more work to manage your trees relatively using path shift but it is much more robust to variability in upstream tree structure. If you post a definition I'd be happy to demonstrate the approach with your particular problem!

Permalink Reply by David Stasiuk on October 25, 2017 at 9:22am

I'll second Andrew here and strongly recommend using shift paths as a means to maintain desirable and stable data tree structure...the problem you're having is in fact the exact reason not to use simplify.

Permalink Reply by japhy on October 25, 2017 at 9:27am

One possibility is the Elefront plugin; which allows you to reference and filter via attributes, as well maintain tree structure through the baking/reference process. This allows you to maintain Andrews rules and have additional selection/distribution possibilities.

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Sheridan on October 25, 2017 at 10:11am

Thanks guys. I stopped using simplify a while ago, but haven't found an automated approach so will take a look at shift?

Thanks

Permalink Reply by Jonathan Sheridan on October 31, 2017 at 7:48am

I think the fact that I am not using shift has complicated certain "bottle-necks" where I use multiple path mappers to make sure the info goes through.

Your comments welcome.

Attachments:

ExcelStaticRead3.gha, 23 KB

Permalink Reply by Andrew Heumann on October 31, 2017 at 8:50am

Hey Jonathan - I'd like to take a thorough look at this. At a first glance I can tell there's a lot of opportunities for path management improvement. I will try to go through your definition and show some alternative approaches - it may take me a little while however as this is a big and complex routine!