Kinky sweep

most of my baggage comes from classic archittecture. (don’t shout! :slight_smile:)
In the image bellow you will see a frieze which you can find in Roman architecture up to art nouveau.(with the curvature a bit exagurated)
you will agree that (in this context) the curved line is more natural and correct than the straight one.

I’m not even sure it’s possible if the corner is non-planar. There’s probably no way to orient the section curves in such a way that the same points on each intersect each other on a single surface as they approach the kink.

Are you sure?
Are you aware of any bibliography on the subject?

In this definition, a profile starts as a square from one side, sweeps along the first curve, intersects with the ‘bisecting surface’ then the intersection sweeps along the second curve and comes out from the other side again as square (a little skewed, but I’m hopping that its the accumulated impressisions)
I must admit I’m going by instict here but personally I’m convinced it is possible.
(it’s something the baroque artists have done a million times- by eyballing it-. There must be an equivalent geometric principle for this)

bisecting surfaces.gh (45.4 KB)
giphy (2)

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me!

missing

come ooon!
don’t be bitter! :slight_smile:
I honestly cannot work anymore without telepathy and nobody else has complained so far.
why don’t you try it? It will clear your canvas, believe me!

So do hidden wires. Neither is necessary.

From one of your other threads related to this one - hidden wires, clear, clean canvas! Not so easy anymore to see how it works, though, eh?


mapsurface_2018Jan29a.gh (25.5 KB)

I would have to agree with Joseph partly on this one regarding plug-ins but more on that later.

I can understand people liking hidden wires (I use them on large codes myself where an input is connected to multiple portion of code.) Also the use of containers “sometimes!” to collect wires together before going into groups and to keep track of what a portion of components inputs and outputs, even clusters too if the section of code does not seen to be seen by the end user and if it breaks does not cause unseen issues to outputs.

I have downloaded “Telepathy” so i could see how you used in your code and feel hidden wire is all you really need, no need for “Telepathy”, Sorry. Its only a small code with a few inputs so personally would not even hide the wires.

I can also see the point of keeping plug-ins to the minimum where possible both in asking questions and in general development of code being the better approach. Its fine if the code is just for you, but if your working in a large office or freelance for a client trying to keep getting them to install new plug-ins can be a pain. Especially in an studio/office where you may have admin rights on your machine, but another colleague does not so can’t use your code or it does not work on the presentation machine etc.

Just my 2 cents.
Now back to the question in hand, i will try and help with that in another reply.

PS. Ok one more thing linked to the code if you want to remove the last in the list just use Shift -1 with wrap set to false so no need for the cluster inside a cluster there.

1 Like

See, that’s one little thing that benefits @anikolo just because you were able to examine his code. Very kind of you to go out of you way to read it. I started trying to wire connections in his code and fix the gaps left by missing Telepathy but gave up.

this only works for planar profiles. The moment you crown the profile top surfaces and you look not from top view you may notice a weird flow.
So that is why I said, straight or jagged . If you create a polyline and not a curve at the intersection points this problem will disappear. However if you assume staying planar and you are not crowning the surfaces in z direction you won’t have that problem and you can use a curve.
This however is a very special case and won’t count for nonplanar profiles. I may code this case up, later the day since this case is rather simple.

No.

No.

It’s a purely intuitive thing for me as well. At the kink the two sections have to be perfectly aligned, and they have to remain perfectly aligned as they both slide away from the kink along different curved paths. You are of course free to rotate the section around the path tangent in any continuous fashion you like, but that is only a single degree of freedom, while the paths can curve away from each other in two different directions (only in one direction if they are co-planar, which is I’m guessing why it works in that degenerate case). 2-1 = 1 problem left you have no means to resolve.

Come on guys! they did it some 200 years ago!

Those look like special cases, i.e. the same curvature or balanced curvature on both sides of the kink.

Actually they are not! (one side is curved and the other is straight) Which accounts for non symmetric paths.

Redefines kitsch or the art of pointless or form defies function or I’ve missed something?

Stay on the subject Peter… I’m not trying to built a church (which I’m sure the L.O.D despices :slight_smile:)
The interesting thing here is to find the principles of meeting sweeps.

And are you sure the curved side is curved in a plane that is not co-planar with the line on the other side?

To be honest no, I haven’t been able to find an elevetion of the building (or an approximating photo) But even if it is not the case there are many examples in baroque architecture.
You are European no? (I think Austrian) You must have visited palaces with ornamental works relevant to the subject. You can see them in painting frames/ friezes/ ornaments.

This is in a nutshell what we are looking for:

here! (you never can find easilly what you’re looking for when you want it)
If you notice the Cornice where the half dome meets the wall You will notice there is a double curvature.

Nope.
Eindhoven?


Note: with reference to the Useless Rhino thread: there are no curves here - it’s a picture, only bits and bytes…