Making a box - how hard can this be to loft simple squares? :)

I thought this would be simple. I managed to model my nixie clock board and clock with all the right dimensions in Grasshopper (based on the dxf of the motherboard and measuring the components).Top and bottom faces are the frame for the outer box and here im stuck.

The external housing is to be milled with the cnc out of wood so i will have different thickness size frames and attachments, rails to mill. So i need good measuring of wall thickness (because i need to flatten the board at the right dimensions). But when i tried to extrude or loft the side walls to get a miter joints it kind of went south.

Impossible to loft 2 different sized rectangles. I see an issue because it’s a list of 4 items and with the way the points are ordered (but they look fine when i explode the curve). I have no idea how to clean this? Can you help please? Im trying to avoid exploding further or reworking model from xy plane - if it can be avoided. I tried Flip Curve but why is one flipped and not the others? I missed a graft or a flatten? Entwine/weave/etc needed?.

My process is to make the walls with a miter joint or a trapezoid profile. So i need this trapezoid and 45 degree angle controlled by a dimension (not scale). And i need to make the walls inner and outer at a certain distance from the edges of the top and bottom boards so i can make a rail profile after. But i can’t make the simple miterred side walls.

I know i could i approach this from the xy plane trapezoid profile and extruding z wise, but this has some inconveniences in my model as there is a variable number of Z size components (spacers, washers, addon plates), components which define the box height.


nixie (28.3 KB)

Thanks for any help

You can use Ruled Surface instead.

Thanks… i will have a look. (sent from the garden)

Worked beautifully! Thanks Jakinta!

1 Like

this doesn’t resolve the loft issue however… extrude is not always the right solution, loft is over complicated, networked surfaces etc are even more complicated for developing 3D surfaces. I know one solution is better for a given situation but why so many options that should work dont when it seems the logical solution?

i do explore the trees and output lists to see where my issues are but not all solutions work the same way…