Lunchbox UV question

Hi! I am currently getting into Lunchbox, and I have some questions about the fundamental logic of it.

As far as I have understood it, lunchbox reads the UV of your surface and applies its panelling logic to it. Thus, if you are unhappy about how the panels turn out, you must find a way to control the UV.

However, when I’m adjusting my UV, I don’t see a very direct relation between it and the panels. See below for two different surfaces with quite different UVs - the UV lines are visible as black lines in the baked surface. To me, the lunchbox panels (green) look very similar despite the change in UV - am I missing some basic logic here? If not by changing the UV, how would I go about to set up the surface or the script, so that I, for example, had taller panels at the top of my surface compared to the bottom?

Thank you for any tips and explanations!

could you please post your GH file with internalized geometries?

UV is generally understood as a 2d boundary space (another way is to understand it is discretely and U and V is the number of divisions in this space). This space can be evaluated using two coordinates to obtain a point, normal, curvature… and evaluating the whole domain of one dimension leaving the other constant is known as isocurve. This space can be reparametrized which means to redefine it using homegeneously distributed control points. So, the difference of isocurves is not necessarily telling you that the space has different parameter distribution, it can also be that the isocurves are evaluated at different positions, I don’t know what Rhino does when drawing. On the other hand, it is possible that a method first reparametrizes the space before using it without you realizing it. And it is also possible to transform the coordinates to adapt them to their relative position in a regular domain instead of simply evaluating those positions in a weighted domain. It may also be that the weights of the control points defining the surface are balancing their irregular distribution and that is the reason the result looks the same. I don’t know, what I mean is that many things can be happening and if you don’t ask directly to the plugin author you should upload the file to find out how to get it with your surface. If that component has integer inputs, you can try to reconstruct the surface using your own distribution of points, if that component asks you for coordinates, you can give it an irregular distribution.

Hi, please see the attached file.
The first green area is the creation of the desired shape. The second green area attempts to rebuild that shape via the UV setup so that the panellization can be affected. You can try moving the graph mapper around, the UV changes but the panels look similar.

You may need to bake the input called “upper circle” and zoom extents to find the geometry, I haven’t checked the coordinates.

Thanks! (22.9 KB)

you can connect a Loft Options component to the O input of the Loft component , and in the loft option type “T” chose Uniform