algorithmic modeling for Rhino
Hay,
I'm labelling for manufacture and would like to join these lists and change format.
It would end up with the number being the branch and containing the 2 branches it was found in.
I dont know where to look and I cant get the path mapper to do it.
Could someone point me in the right direction please?
Thanks
Tags:
Path mapper is a very good thing but ... you MUST be 100% sure about your input (as regards dimensions).
This is very easily doable with code - notify if you want such a solution. It's also doable with components but personally I prefer always the code way when dealing with data trees "managerial" matters.
Thanks Peter,
I know that both the trees are equal in input (i.e: 192 values in each with 62 branches in each)
So I thought it would be just simple path mapper solution, but is it just cleaner/quicker with code?
Also I can join the 2 trees and be left with 62 branches with 284 pairs of numbers with no pair in the same branch
If you think that code would be the way to go then I would be very grateful with your solution.
Otherwise the only way I can think to do the path mapper is to convert the index to the numeric value? and then {A;B;C}(i) >> {A;B;i}(C) and merge the 2 trees? But this doesn't look right to me.
The manufacturing format should look like 1_4_6: that 4 is related to 1 and 6 at either end of 4's line (if this info helps I dont know?) this I can do in a formatting function.
Thanks again
OK, here's the deal: post some stuff of yours and I'll do it both ways (and maybe you could been attracted by The Dark Side, who knows? he he).
That said dealing with ANY "managerial" issue directly (code) appears (to me) far easier/cleaner/etc etc not to mention a VAST amount of capabilities/methods available for manipulating Lists (because a DataTree is an "ordered" collection of Lists).
PS: in this case equal dimensions is good (mapper) but what if the next week appears some other case that ... blah, blah (especially in the "middle" of some complex def that is constantly changing as you refine the whole solution/add capabilities/add-delete components/add-delete whatever).
Moral: post the test stuff.
I'm not gonna lie, the Dark Side looks scary but then again I am easily swayed...
Nice one!
No reason for not simplifying, the data's just for a print list/visual que.
The thing I find is it much easier to produce definitions through visual programming (GH) then code, and Although I kinda can see what you did, I cant (yet) speak the language. This is why I was leaning towards the PathMapper.
Thank you Peter! I am very grateful.
I do hope that nobody else read this ... but the Truth (out There) is that code "elevates" you to another level.
In fact ... in order to prove exactly that I've just took delivery of my personal elevator: cost me some dollars (but hey who's counting?) but it proves the theory quite well.
Added something fun for you (brep massacre, that is).
BTW: I have a lot of Dark Side stuff that prepare anything (most notably: complex trusses, space frames, domes and the likes) for construction (node connectivity, angles, lengths, vectors, dihedrals, umbrella sticks (don't ask), cats, dogs and one alligator).
Notify if you want something.
Welcome to
Grasshopper
Added by Parametric House 0 Comments 0 Likes
Added by Parametric House 0 Comments 0 Likes
Added by Parametric House 0 Comments 0 Likes
Added by Parametric House 0 Comments 0 Likes
Added by Parametric House 0 Comments 0 Likes
© 2024 Created by Scott Davidson. Powered by