Extruding surfaces v Lofting curves

Attached is a definition where I have generated a simple box girder section by the use of mirroring achieving a surface with the aim of extruding along the attached rhino curve.

I find extruding curves quite difficut to control, ie the extrusion may not be along the curve.

In the attached definition workflow comments are on the def, however from my surface I have generated curves, then lofted them around the curve.

I would appreciate some advice as to how I close the curves to make the voided solid box.

Some advice about the relative merits of surface extrusion v's lofted curves would be great.

regards

Kenyon

Attachments:

Simple box geometry.3dm, 40 KB
GARL_PD_Rev_C.gh, 38 KB

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on January 11, 2017 at 12:45am

Chaos (trees and the likes) was on duty. What the poor Loft could do?

See attached.

Bad news: your profiles are wrongly arranged (meaning that the beam is "inclined" inwards).

Attachments:

Extrude.gh, 44 KB

Permalink Reply by Kenyon Graham on January 13, 2017 at 1:54pm

Thanks Peter, I was almost there with it, makes sense. You will see that I now deal with orientate and rotate moderately better ;)

The 186 provides 6% super elevation inwards to resit centrifugal effects outwards. The project is a option for an airport rail link. My permanent way colleagues call it cant.

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on January 14, 2017 at 12:06am

Well ...

Indeed the inwards profile rotation makes sense if we are talking about rails.

That said I have a far more elaborated C# that does this using any number of "beam modules" (and "approximates" any nurbs via arcs in order to make "modular" beams in real life).

Using Sweep1 instead of Loft.