Map geometry from one surface to another

I have a “tileable” geometry that I have built along a rectangular base surface, and now I want to map that geometry onto a curved target surface relative to the base surface. The example I have provided is a simplified version of what I am trying to do, but captures the problem areas. My “tileable” geometry is the same length as the base surface, but some elements are offset and overhanging. I don’t want to split the overhanging geometry at the front and fill it in at the back- I need the relationship of my geometries to stay the same (list order matters). In the example, I map it to one circular surface, but it will more than likely be mapped onto a more twisted surface where the tile may be mapped onto multiple surface segments that form a loop.

I know what the problem is with my script- Srf CP is pulling the overhanging areas to its edge, which then makes it evaluate to the wrong position on the target surface. I know that we can evaluate a reparameterized surface with UV values less than 0 and greater than 1, but is there a way to find the UV value of a point that is beyond 0 and 1 of a surface? Sort of like the reverse of the Point Oriented component, but with a surface.

Maybe there is a totally different way to do this?

160824 (7.0 KB)
160824 temp.3dm (88.2 KB)

I have never used it but try and using

if you dont mind using Rhino you can always use the FlowAlongSurfaceCommand.

The FlowAlongSurface command did not bring the ends together. It produces results where the overhanging parts look very compressed.

you need to trim the curves so they fit within the surface. that should do the trick.

I know that splitting the overhanging geometry and putting it at the other end would do the trick, but my actual pattern is much more complex and I do not want to disrupt item index order and item count. Other things need to happen to my geometry before I can bake it, so FlowAlongSurface would not work for me.

My suggestion is that you do break it up. That is how you achieve the best result and that is why if you have geometry beyond the surface you lose control over it. That is my 2 cents. I would rethink the workflow or break the workflow into several parts. Might not be ideal for your case…