Distance measure component versus closest point component for attractor pattern

[archz2]

For a long time I had been using closest point component to generate attractor pattern geometry. Today I used a distance component to generate the same pattern. Now I am wondering what is the advantage of closest point component in this workflow or there is no advantage ?

ATTRACTOR PATTERN QUERY.gh (13.0 KB)

[Joseph_Oster]

In this case, there is no advantage to using Closest Point. Just the opposite, in fact, since there is no need to search a “cloud” of points.

[HS_Kim]

@archz2

Now I am wondering what is the advantage of closest point component in this workflow or there is no advantage

If you try to set multiple attractor points in both definitions, then you’ll see the difference.

[maje90 (Riccardo Majewski)]

If you have a single attractor point, Distance is faster. About 2x speed more or less.

But if you have multiple attractor points:

Closest Point is way faster. (With Distance you would need to rebuild the logic)
Also you will have the algorithm structure that can swap easily to Surface/Brep/Mesh closest point component…

[Joseph_Oster]

@HS_Kim

If you try to set multiple attractor points in both definitions, then you’ll see the difference.

True, but in that case the cloud would be the list of attractor points.

[HS_Kim]

Check the difference.

ATTRACTOR PATTERN QUERY_re.gh (10.7 KB)

[archz2]

@HS_Kim

If you try to set multiple attractor points in both definitions, then you’ll see the difference.

Thanks. Now I understand.