puffer fish and telepathy: it needs those two plugins!
If you want more people to look at your code, you need to remove them.
I prefer to promote plugins that I love!!! 
Your endorsement doesn’t mean anything unless the plugins are essential to your solution and you can explain how? Are they? Or can the same result be achieved without them?
Ok, I’ll give you that: pufferfish was not essential for this definition so I removed it.(it was but one component)
but to remove telepathy I’d have to redo it from the beginning. 
kinkysweep5.gh (61.0 KB)
Too bad. “telepathy” probably isn’t necessary either? Oh well. Curious about what you did but not curious enough to install plugins.
Telepathy is nice. It’s is like a kind of receiver. Nice for cleaning up definitions. Also, is standard in GH1 rhino 6 with relays in a way and even more so with data input/outputs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP3xBaMD6j0. It’s something you should get used to.
Same result can be done for most anything without plugins. (Even loops if you copy/paste) My question is why do without and also who cares? Plugins often simplify processes and and make them faster. (The same process in one component can me much faster than a chain of components) Mcneel knows this as well and often you will see gh adapt or integrate a plug in completely. (Gh1 includes kangaroo, weaverbird, and Jackelope) so is it only acceptable when mcneel installs it for you? I do agree that when posting a definition you should note what plugins were used so the user isn’t surprised. But there is no reason not to use plugins.
Really nice effort
(ignore unrelated audio)
Whoa, I had to quickly ignore that entire video, so I still don’t know why telepathy is needed?
That’s a dramatic overstatement, Michael, and I think you know that. Copy/paste is not the same as loops (Anemone). Kangaroo, Weaverbird and Jackelope (and probably Pufferfish and other plugins) offer features that aren’t available in standard GH so there are valid reasons for using them.
There are two perfectly valid reasons not to use them unless they are necessary:
- Extraneous, superfluous, non-essential code is always a distraction in software development.
- Forcing people to install every plugin just to see and learn GH concepts and techniques that are entirely unrelated to those unnecessary plugins is an ineffective way to teach. It deprives the casual observer from looking at and learning from a model like the one @anikolo has posted here unless we “swallow the whole enchilada”, so to speak, and clutter our world with the vast array of plugins that someone deemed essential, when in fact, they weren’t needed at all.
In the case of Pufferfish for this def the component was not needed (reparameterize numbers) cuz it is essentially just remapping numbers to the domain of 0-1. It’s just one of those components I really made for myself because we use reparameterized (normalized) values so much that it was just annoying me to always have to use bounds then remap ect (was just a small shortcut that made me think how does this simple thing not exist already as one simple component, for something we use all the time:D) but Pufferfish’s main use is morphing, interpolation, and tweens (tweens meaning without dividing curves or surfaces into many points and cross connecting / reinterpolating - those are always inaccurate, require many points, and screw up kinks in polylines).
Telepathy is not necessary for the code to work. It is an organizational tool to not make the gh def look like a bowl of spaghetti. That’s why he means he will have to remake the def. But sure he could make it again without.
I get your point in not wanting to download every plugin in the world just to see what’s going on. Too bad there is no way to enforce some forum standard about writing what plugins are needed when posting a def. It’s like enforcing people to internalize data.
Mentioning what plugins are necessary to view a model would keep me from wasting my time but I’ll never know if plugins were really necessary to solve the primary issue? If they are not, an opportunity is lost to learn something about GH that might be really useful.
Until gh2 comes and the process is different anyway (potentially) Gh itself is also a plugin that is most likely going to change. I remember when data trees were first introduced, before that lists were always flat. Changed everything. Who knows what’s next - things seem to be moving in the direction of telepathy and “object” type processes (more close to c# coding)
This isn’t meant for you to install. Just is the example I am talking about when I mean object: http://www.food4rhino.com/app/objectify
3 days and a lot of help later, I have a definition that is half- decent.
Still a long way to go unfortunatelly and it seems that a universal solution is still not in sight
kinkysweep6.gh (70.3 KB)
It’s hard when reality kicks you in the face! hahaha
Yes, the addition of profiles in the middle of the sections was a bad idea…
In what I’m doing now it is important to create ‘kinky sweeps’ that are also tappered. (kind of like the example in the beginning of the discussion. I am using them often in my designs and would really need an automated proccess. Would you recomend giving the time to try icem surf?
(and does it work with non-planar curves well?)
What I want to acieve are forms like this: (without the ugly bulges in the middles of course) that also bends along the x axis. (you could do it by bending the produced geometry but it’s like ‘melted’ and not organic.
there are solutions like T-splines but they mostly produce a result which is pleasant to the eye but is not mathematically pure and If you want to inference the produced geometry to generatively produce more complex forms, they are not harmonic…
P.S. I just realized: in the manual model I think the ‘kink profiles’ are planar right? If so, we are off topic. This form that I showed is a ‘light’ case where you could compromize for planar kink profiles, but for more extreme cases (for which this is intended) where you have more acute angles, the resulting profiles need to be curvy!
can you please show a top view?
