Please see GH file for futher details (data internalized) Loft-question-01.gh (112.2 KB)
A little history:
These curves extracted out of a noise implemented Brep.
But since bottom of the shape also has the same noise and I want it to be perfect circle,
I thought it would be a good idea;
to cull first N curves
inject the circle into the list
and finally loft them so it would be a flowless transition.
However,
As you will see on both screenshot and the GH files, it doesn’t work in any case.
Looks like the only thing you need is the Loft option ‘Rebuild’ (white group below). The purple group moves the seam (start/end point) of the bottom curve (blue group) and all other curves above it using Crv CP(Curve Closest Point).
It’s my bed not to tell the whole story so let me give more details as to why “rebuild” is not a solution for this specific case,
That Brep is part of a bigger object and splitted using “Split Brep” to make those operations.
So the ultimate goal is to join this piece back to where it belongs to.
Since “rebuild” is slightly changing the curvature form, there appear small gaps when joining the pieces back together.
I don’t know if there is another way to handle this but all the resources I come across so far suggests that having “sorted” and “all seams aligned” set of curves shall form a loft without any problem.
Since I have that already, do you have any idea as to why it might not be working?
Thank you for the answer and it obviously constructs closest form.
However I guess it’s not constructing the same curve so it would fit/match the other piece perfectly.
Actually, the overall goal is to be able to have a gradually dying noise effect on the object towards the bottom and/or top.
There is a way I found on this page where the Graphmapper used a filter but that is using “fields” and it doesn’t work in my case using Noise on Mesh or Fast Noise (at least I couldn’t figure it out) Planter pot with attractor points
Thank for sharing. That solution also looked so promising in the first place as it is using the curves itself to construct a new mesh.
However, I tried comparing the resultant curves measuring their center points of off each other but the result is not “0” so I guess it won’t work as expexted.
What, why and where this matters?
You know that a number like 3.89e-6 means 3.89*10^-6 or 0.00000389 units in your document.
Even if those were meters (architecture), it would mean an error of 0.00389 millimeters
or 3.89 μm.
For comparison, you are saying that an error of about a hairdust particles width is relevant while designing a ice hockey field. #baldeaglescreeching
What are you doing?
You can increase the rebuild count or subdivision count to thin the error, but it’s meaningless already, and it will never be “0”.
Re-consider what you are doing/asking.
