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:
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.
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?
