# Create Mesh

It is under curve category so I thought this was a native.
But if not, maybe …I guess it comes from Curve Plus.

there is a million ways to make a brep like this.
In this case I make 6 surfaces from closed polyline using boundary surfaces. After that, simple mesh, and weld mesh vertices(mesh+, if I remember correctly. must have plugin)

pgm.gh (10.3 KB)

1 Like

exactly what i needed, thank you so much

1 Like

Here’s a simple GHPython solution using the RhinoCommon mesh class. One really should avoid hacky brep/surface-based workarounds for cases such as this.

230523_PolylineMeshDisc_00.gh (8.3 KB)

3 Likes

Where can I learn python online to do this? Thank you

What is wrong with my solution? I think it’s all based on context. If he is trying to understand general principles and solve a real problem, it will work just fine.

Since you asked, a couple of things that immediately spring to mind:

1. It’s a needlessly complex and indirect hack/kludge to a problem that has a simple direct solution.

2. It doesn’t work with nonplanar polygons.

3. It requires third party plugins.

4. It requires a plane input.

1 Like
1. Programming on python is not a simple solution.
2,4 is about surface creation, you can change it easily to match your needs. Grasshopper has a lot more tools to work with nurbs geometry, that you can turn into mesh afterwards.
Imo when you are doing a real job you do not have the time to use neither the most beautiful solution, nor the one you do not fully understand.

Yep, it is Curve+.

Now I think of it, actually this component is really powerful, it can turn any polygon into quads.

I’d argue it is, but I was talking about the logic/algorithm (i.e. not the implementation). Here’s my algorithm implemented using Grasshopper nodes. To me this is more complex than the Python code, but I’d agree that is also quite subjective:

230523_PolylineMeshDisc_01.gh (13.6 KB)

Indeed, where your logic/solution demonstrates a lack of understanding basic mesh modelling.

I have a real job that fully depends upon generating/analysing meshes. The idea that they somehow are more time consuming seems ill conceived and quite "when all you have is a hammer… "

Hence being a workaround, instead of a direct solution.

1 Like

Solution with weaverbird catmull clark component, works fine with non-planar curves too.

weaverbird_mesh_catmull_clark.gh (4.5 KB)

2 Likes

Of course, that solution looks great. It is a perfect scenario. And of course If you are working with meshes every day you should do it like that. But if you are trying to complete some kind of small project, or modeling for a school project and you need solutions here and now, why would you start learning python, or trying to achieve perfect mesh modeling workflow?

I came up with the fastest and easiest-to-understand solution, taking into account that the person asking the question seems to be a newbie. So I find this statement to be quite aggressive. You made this conclusion based on one screenshot? Thats cringe

Look, I’m not here to discuss with anonymous strangers. And I’m sorry if you find my statement aggressive/cringe, but your solution DOES demonstrate a lack of mesh modelling understanding (i.e. by not generating one through explicitly defining vertices/faces).

Nice strawman, but that’s not what I suggested. I’m simply saying that one ought use the appropriate geometry types/methods for the problem at hand (i.e. polylines, lines, points, and meshes in this case). Why learn about paint and brushes if you’re a painter? Why learn about cars if you’re an auto mechanic?

Says who? Why are the other solutions provided not fast and easy to understand?

1 Like

Okay, you are right. Our discussion is offtopic. Sorry, I was wrong, and you were right.

What kind of input did you use for the second part of the script?

test.gh (21.1 KB)

I get an error in the lofting part… So i was wondering how your code is working. What is different to “my” code.

There is a small mistake

Here.

1 Like