Element Geometry component and depth of the branches

[fcegnam (Fernando Ceña)]

Hi,

why the depth of the branches in the Element Geometry component has changed? In previous versions the component increased by one the number of levels in the branches, but in the latest release (v1.11.8410.29937) it is increasing it by two. The same is happening with the Release Candidate version (v1.12.8417.6530) and the Daily Build version (v1.13.8417.24479).

I noticed this because all of a sudden my scripts that were relying on the Element Geometry component are not working as they used to, because I was considering just one level increase. I also tested them on the same samples that I have for testing. For example, I was using this to remove the elements from the Query View Elements component that did not contain any geometry, by comparing it with the result of the Element Geometry (as you can see in the image).

Fixing it is not a problem on my side (I can graft twice), I am just wondering which is going to be the future standard for this, or if this may change again.

[Japhy]

Simplify at the Elements output?

[fcegnam (Fernando Ceña)]

Yes, simplify works, not a problem, I was just wondering about the change

[Japhy]

if you really want to know…

Your Opinion on Tree Simplification Rules

Request for input. Tree simplification in GH2 behaves differently from GH1 (even differently from Suirify). There are three options for simplification; RemoveLeadingOverlaps, RemoveTrailingOverlaps, and RemoveAllOverlaps. In case this isn’t self-documenting, consider the following tree: \{0;0;0;1;0\} \{0;3;0;2;0\} \{0;8;0;3;0\} RemoveLeadingOverlaps simplifies this to: \{0;0;1;0\} \{3;0;2;0\} \{8;0;3;0\} RemoveTrailingOverlaps simplifies this to: \{0;0;0;1\} \{0;3;0;2\} \{0;8;0;3\} a…

Use the Suirify component where simplify doesn’t do the job.

WISH : "Match by branch paths" option in relevant components

Again, un-needed branching is very troubling to me. Suirify adresses the issue here, while “Simplify” doesn’t : [The Suirify nuance] Here’s what it does. It does more or less what I would like the components to do according to the title of this thread. Limits are made to be pushed back, aren’t they ? That’s what I do, and I find treesloth tools very useful to that end, but I could probably achieve the same with a bunch of GH components connected in a well-crafted manner. It would just…

Simplify option needs to get universal

OK, Let’s quit joking. I get why some components will graft the output, but the simplify option is there to prevent that when the grafting is not desired. Then it should also work when the input tree has a single path, period. I don’t care about the futile philosophical reasons ; I just see that it makes a complete mess of my definitions, and requires silly workarounds all over the place ! [Simplify%20in%20your%20face]

[kike (Kike Garcia)]

Hi @fcegnam,

This has changed in v1.11 to output same branches even the ‘Expand Dependents’ options is disabled.
This way you can switch this on and off without having to accommodate the downstream components.

[fcegnam (Fernando Ceña)]

Thank you @kike and @Japhy for your help!!