This curve cannot be piped. When you open its list panel, you can find that there are some contradictions in the information. Although it is a single curve, it is marked as polynurbs, and the segment = 1. Its parameter range is about 0 to 180, but the range of the nodes below is actually 0 to 280. The weights of all its control points are 1, but it is identified as a rational curve. Under these contradictions, it is puzzling. Please help me, thank you very much."
I have some of my own understandings, but I donāt know if they are correct. I think it is a parameter mapping error, but I donāt know what caused this error. Because of the redundant parameters, the pipe command cannot be performed. Moreover, the redundant parameters cause the system to judge that this curve is a multi-curve, etc. So as long as the curve is recalculated, the problem can be solved. For example, redefining the parameter domain to be greater than or equal to the redundant parameterization, slightly pulling the control points, deleting the duplicate nodes, can make the curve pipe normally
You can also turn on the FitRail option in Pipe to make it work (which replaces the āpolycurveā with a single curve for the operation).
Isnāt the more interesting question: how did you create the problematic curve?
Thank you very much, it seems that there is no FitRail option in the pipe command. Iām also not sure how this curve came about; it was given to me by a friend who said it was created by cutting a surface and then duplicating the cut edge. I find it very confusing
I found that even when I select the ātangent point does not splitā option, the pipe command still runs successfully. Iām becoming increasingly confused."
ChangeDegree with New Degree of 5 and Deformable=No will fix the parameterization while not changing the shape of the curve.
OK, I understand now. It was a translation issue. In Chinese, this was translated as ātangent point does not splitā, not āfitrailā."
Yes, your operation essentially involves recalculating the curve to obtain the correct knot range. My confusion lies in why there is an inconsistency between the parameter range and the knot range. Additionally, what are the underlying causes of the various contradictions arising from this phenomenon?
Well it could be:
Was that in Rhino?
The answer to these questions is difficult to impossible to determine without knowing details of how the curve was created and what software was used.
I sincerely apologize for using pirated software. As a freshman in college, I currently have limited financial resources and cannot afford the official version. However, once I earn money from a summer job, I will definitely support the official version. Could you please explain why using pirated software causes these technical issues? I would be deeply grateful for your understanding."
yes in rhino
When a software is pirated the bypasses for instance for license checks can also inject all sorts of other problems. It could be changes to code that generate the geometries you look at. In a worst case scenario you open your own system up to internet criminals.
Iām just saying that using a modified Rhino version makes it hard for anybody to properly know what the reasons for bugs can be.
Always when you use cracked/pirated software be aware that it is very likely that you get malware or open backdoors to your system(s).
And as said, you use also an old version besides it being cracked. It could be that a potential bug that created this geometry was fixed in later versions.
Thank you very much for your patient explanations. I will purchase the official version as soon as possible.
