Hello Guys
Is there any way to have less control Points on created surface after sweep2 Command?
Let’s explain more: I know after sweep I can use RemoveKnot and make it less, but my point is having less control points after Sweep2. I placed my profiles on EDIT POINTS to have better Result. But nothing Changed. I believe that we don’t need this quantity of Cps. I can have same shape less cps.
I really appreciate your support.
to reduce your c-points, you might try having all sections actually intersect with the rail curves now whether that is important or not, what is for sure needed is that also the section curves have the same cps othewise you will get increasing density. both rail curves have for instance the same cps which is already a good start, just clean up or rearrange the rest.
Hello- the sweep algorithm is inherently ‘point heavy’ except in cases where the rail curves match exactly in structure and the shape curves are placed on matching pairs of rail edit points. RemoveMultiknot will cut the number in half and can sometimes be useful but in this case, it is hard to see what can be gained, the surface is still quite dense.
What is the goal, for you, in having fewer points? Do you want to hand edit control points?
Incidentally, the shape curves have stacked control points - that should be avoided.
-Pascal
Hi Pascal
Yes. I really like to have less cps on my surface. Sometimes I use Loft and Merge instead of sweep but it takes time double comparing to Sweep2. especially in this kind of twisted surface.
So do u think the only way is using RemoveKnot and RemovemultiKnot?
I understand that. My question is, why, in this case?
-Pascal
I placed 5 profile between 2 rails. After sweep2, some area need to modify for having nice shape. Connecting surface between Profiles doesn’t give you desirable result in some cases. I need to have less cps to move and drag cps. Same Tspline and Sub-D.
This is my Desirable surface after sweep.
dear @MohsenMohammadvali
you may want to check the forum for “simple sweep”.
not sure if this is possible for closed cross section curves.
you may want to split the cross sections in two curves - both touch the rails at edit-points.
after 2x _sweep2 use _matchSrf as a backup to make sure you do not have a kink between the 2 surfaces
kind regrads - tom
Hi
Thank you
I did it. But simple sweep doesn’t work properly if you have more than one profile. Sometimes work but most of time no Result. Specially with this kind of profiles that I made.
This is what I wish i could do in Rhino. i can help a lot. But bad news is it has it’s hidden errors.
your curves have duplicate CV s. maybe this makes it more complicate.
i am a big fan of simple sweep, too. I started a topic
But the reaction of the community was not strong enough for mc neel to react / get inspired.
Thank you Tom. Yes I’m sure it’s really necessary to have it. I’m sure they can bring it back.
I’m addicted to surface modeling process. I always want a surface having as less cps as possible. That’s why I can make complex surfaces.
I hope Mcneel help us.
Hello - I would, I think, first concentrate on making good input curves - the shape curves have stacked control points and the rails are not in contact with the intermediate shape curves.
To get the ‘simple’ sweep, the shape curve end points must lie on the curve edit points (EditPtOn) - your shapes would need to be split in two. As is they are not in contact with both rails at all.
-Pascal
Thank you Pascal
I will try in the morning and I update again. If it works, would be great.
Best Regards
