I was completely wrong for what I wanted Grasshopper to do

This probably has occurred to you but…

When I first saw Grasshopper, I thought it was cool, you know, with the sliders, input boxes, to interact with Grasshopper on one window, and Rhino in another, parametrically but graphically.

Now, I am finding, that I want to draw a stick-figure or box-drawing of where I want to make whatever I want to make–and then Grasshopper replaces it with what I have hopefully programed it to do.

It sound rudimentary, but as style, I want to control everything about my thing with the stick-figure itself or simple representation, in Rhino’s 3D window.

In other words, currently, I am taking in 14 parameters from my stick-figure, with only 4 sliders or input boxes–everything else is measured and aligned from the stick figure.

Then, this basic stick-figure template becomes part of the tool. I drop the stick figure in somewhere, and lengthen this, shorten that, heightened this, and Grasshopper adds the final general part over it.

Though, more than anything, I find that I need the sliders for radii. I should think that counts of things such as segments would be difficult to gather in this way.

[ It also reminds me of level editing, whereas you had programming connections, relays, and triggers, running right through rooms. It would be like running Grasshopper in a 3D window ]

Hi Brenda. It is doable. I’ve been playing around with Kangaroo and Mesh Cage Morph last year and created this stickman. I can move the joints and manipulate node sizes in Rhino.

The whole thing is a bit complicated and I think it is more efficient to use other software such as Blender or Unreal, which will also lead to much better and compelling results.


Hi Brenda, please use descriptive titles rather than clickbait-style with each words starting capitalized, thanks.

1 Like

I removed the Caps in the title

Clickbait aside, that capitalisation is one case of title case:

1 Like

Could be but it’s used for clickbait titles as well and this title is a clear example of it.

It’s literally how you write titles:


Sure, but this isn’t a book title, it’s a topic title. For me at least it doesn’t add to legibility of the topics.

1 Like

That’s fair. As I recall, scientific journals also use sentence case for titles. Anywho, think I’m gonna keep using title case for topic titles. I’ll stop derailing any further :raising_hand_man:

[Firstly, the thread was titled exactly as the thought occurred to me. It’s not always easy to admit when I am wrong about my approach on something, and then I do, and just because someone sees too many ads, they think that my epiphany is disingenuous?

Secondly, having done a lot of graphics, I often use traditional capitalization used in graphics and signage. I am sorry if people didn’t recognize it for what it was. ]

Thirdly, Martin Siegrist, thank you for your on-topic reply. : )

1 Like

I was trying to share something. This thread is trashed for me.
The sad thing is: I was just telling people what a great forum this is to someone : (
Continue without me.

Yes I’m sorry that I misunderstood this capitalization being a common way for titles, it’s not common in my native language. As for the title itself, it does look like a clickbait title, and is not descriptive. Anyhow, too much fuzz really, it was merely request with :wink: to make the title more descriptive

“Stick figure rigging problem” … would be a more descriptive title.

On an even more rudimentary level, the multipipe component basically does what she seems to be talking about on it’s own.

The point deform component has potential, too, but it takes a lot more tree management skills to use it anything but a very simple implementation.

1 Like

Also it just occurred to me that with a little extra tree management, one could convert a subd multipipe to mesh and use the mesh faces to orient all kinds of stuff.

Wait. Come back. There are other people who actually want to stay on topic.


It seems like you are trying to do the equivalent of posing a mesh figure in Blender. It’s well worth watching some YouTube videos of how Blender does this even if you still intend to try and do this in Rhino /GH.

Blender let’s you create a skeleton and define each bone’s influence on mesh faces.

I’m sure this could be done in GH but Blender is free software!


1 Like

I agree with you, but I also learned that people with visual acuity issues tend to use capital letters. It would be nice if the author ( I am not talking about those who are angry or trying to make a point) could use a disclaimer that they will be typing their message in capital letters in order not to cause the readers to jump on him/her like a bunch of hyenas.

This is why Human Factors Engineering should be taught in High School, and not College even if it is at the basic level.

I hope my message doesn’t get misconstrued; it is simply something I learned long time ago. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

No matter, there is a lot of truth to @Brenda 's post.

Apart from all the positive aspects,
the biggest problem with Grasshopper and Rhinocommon is that it doesn’t truly automate Rhino.

If you have no chance to reproduce what you can do directly in Rhino, then this tool is simply too weak. It requires too many tricks and hacks to get things done. In the end, you can automate quite a lot, but it ultimately fails on many real-world scenarios.

After 15+ years, you are still not able to create a precise and continuous Nurbs-shape without any weird hacks. You cannot match surfaces, it took 10 years to officially blend surfaces. In fact, the surface tools are so weak, that I sometimes wonder if the developers of Rhinocommon ever used Rhino to model a shape…

1 Like