Thank you for new node, it will be a great addition to the toolkit.
I have been attempting to achieve the lofts between curves appended to faceted surfaces. To simply things, I have reduced it 2 object arrays: OUTERcircle - INNERcircle. I used BoundingBoxes node to get ptArray info and then BundlePts to get targets for mLoft. The result is closer to the intention but not quite there: see attached image.
Interestingly, I discovered that Sweep node already does multiprocessing, and it is a promising avenue to go down. If it performed a sweep between start profiles and end profiles, it would produce the desired result. Unfortunately, it only recognises the outer curve as the profile input: see mLoft_Panels.nod
I can't tell you how thrilled I am about the great leap forward catalysed by your multiprocessing nodes: mFowObj, mPathArray, mLoft & it seems Sweep.
Using sweep together with mFlowObj it is possible to produce multiple extrudes
with variable profile inputs with differential orientation and extrude distances.
However because sweep node only registers the starting profile the object array
has a contiguous side and a stepped side. The swept planes are all parallel to the rails,
and hence interpenetrate where concave and separate where convex.
They would taper in or out where appropriate, if the sweep node registered the end profile.
And the end side would appear contiguous rather than stepped.
Hello James,
Looks really great, closer to that what you want, but not the ending. Caused by my inadequate english I misunderstood some of your statements. After a closer look to your node files I think, the easiest way would be a variable input length for curve groups like in the bundlePts node - like you already mentioned!!!. For a standalone node it is possible, but I don't know if I can integrate it to the existing. I have to check it in the next days.
Nevertheless I think the tests and experiments here helps to find solutions, gives example for people that want exactly such a result and shows what is possible in general.
>>Caused by my inadequate english I misunderstood some of your statements<<
To clarify I made simple sweep nod file attached.
Sweep factory allows multiple profiles, giving result in image below,
but sweep node only recognises the start profile. see simpleSweep.nod
Given the recent significant developments
redoing the test , I think for exactly orienting objects
in target areas, you could use Offset and then Sweep
unfortunately, currently with only one profile.....
It would serve a Sweep Node MultiProfile and whi not MultiRail...
or, more simply use the actual Loft Node
with a Node similar to (Bundle Pts ) but that groups
curves instead Point-
I've been clear......?
I hope you understand.....
best
al
PS-Sorry for my bad English
I do everything to be understood ...
but it is not always so simple
I have to thank San " GoogleTranslation "
>>>with a Node similar to (Bundle Pts ) but that groups
curves instead Point-
my intention is not to do a seperate Node for that, rather put the curve sequences directly to the loft node (variable number of inputs). The only question is: A new node or RMB option to the actual one. I don't know - I have to look at it. That would solve the problem in a first step. A seperate node that extracts all faces is also useful. There is also a arraygem factory in the API which can do something for us, but I don't know at the moment, how to use it. For the improvement of the sweep node I have to think about it first - It depends on the possible workflows which input variants are useful and what the other nodes have to do for that. It's like the loft node or the pathArray- in a first step everything seems to be good, until you realize the limitations for a special workflow. The offset node is unfinished also. MultiIso node has also a bug, the names of some nodes are not to be understood intuitively ...
Hello Karsten Friends,
another test of new mpatharray-Node
there are several inactive output ,
activate them to see the different behaviors
shown in the attached picture...
<Karsten>
I think the changes to the existing Loft
they can be made at the entrance of the data in the
Node-
Just specify how to order
input ....
I've tested Al's CP-mPathArray - very cool, but my 5 year lenovo G575, that I use for programming, is a little bit slow for such things. Anyway - I've tried to include the RMB option into the mLoft, but I have some problems with the locking mechanism of the input slots - I have to take a deeper look in JS and Max code. So there is a little bug in the new node, that I have attached (in "normal" mode it is possible to remove the target slot ..). So it's a draft, that I have to improve. When I understand the code, I will fix it and post a new one. And we have to think about the compatibility of your posted examples, it is possible that some of them have to be reworked in the future.
It would be a pity, if they wouldn't run in newer versions.
Hi Karsten
I saw the new node and advances
occurred ....
You are truly priceless for the effort they monsters.
Unfortunately these days there it will be able to analyze
and understand the improvements occurred
patience.....
I hope to do next week
Have a nice day
al
>>mLoft2....So it's a draft, that I have to improve<<
I was just wondering, when you return to revise coding of mLoft2
if it would be possible to include polyloft capability
(i.e. selectable separate facets).
Or if easier to create a new mPolyLoft.
The below image may clarify my request.
I want to be able to address individual quads.
I don't want to come across as someone who is never satisfied.
I hope I have already expressed my gratitude for all your early xmas gifts.
I couldn't be happier, with toys I have already!
Hi Karsteen, Burrman, AL, James and all the other smart guys of Project Elephant,
I post here my reply to this post of "wastzzz" where he said (http://moi3d.com/forum/index.php?webtag=MOI&msg=8192.1) :
"....I don't understand anything, where is the last version, what is nodebundles, there is no appropriate thread or instruction.
This forum organization is a pain. My head hurts. No offense"
Well, I totally agree with "wastzzz".
Although I have already played a lot with Project Elephant, now I'm really doing confusion...
Karsteen, Burrman, AL, James and all the other smart guys of Project Elephant, could you please, if you want,
follow the suggestion that I gave you some days ago ?
That is :
I think that would be a good thing if we put at the end of all our posts with nod files this annotation :
"These nod files requires <node editor version name.zip> downloadable at <url>"
For example : "These nod files requires "nodeeditor_0_85_mod6.zip" downloadable at http://take.ms/RfzWH"
This little extra annotation to our posts will greatly help us to understand and test all of your excellent experiments.
construct2.js
