# Matching surfaces with adherent "beams"

Hello!

So I’d like to match the triangular surfaces to the adherent “beams” (pipes), like shown in the picture. I’ve come up with a soulution but its really manual. Is there a good algorithm or a more parametric way for this kind of problem. I can’t come up with one right now.

PairingSrf.gh (60.3 KB)

by carefully navigating the data tree:

PairingSrf.gh (115.4 KB)

1 Like

Thank you! This is one way, but I am specifically interested in rearranging the already existing data. Could that work?

The method from @victorlin does exactly that.

This method creates new lofts, but I already have existing ones, and I actually need polylines (I don’t know why I created surfaces for this subscript, my mistake) I could deconstruct these and work with that but I was actually interested in rearranging the existing data trees without creating new lines or lofts.

You dont need the lofts to get the diagonals. I think that was just a demonstration to show how you could get them from a better organised data structure. See this example:
PairingSrf_V2.gh (60.7 KB)

Here it is based on a polyline: PairingSrf_V3.gh (62.5 KB)

So I have some existing triangles which I want to rearrange in branches. My question specifically relates to rearranging existing information. These are load transfer surfaces from another software in the original script and I have to match the existing beams to them on which they should distribute the loads. Thats why I need the existing beams and polylines arranged in the correct branch
PairingSrf_v0.gh (62.3 KB)

Like this?

PairingSrf_V4.gh (62.2 KB)

I attached a “v0” where I attached the existing polylines. This should be in 1 branch:

In this case it is 2 closed curves and 1 beam
PairingSrf_v0.gh (62.3 KB)

1 Like

Kim already solved it, but here’s how the method I used would work without creating new lofts
PairingSrf.gh (118.1 KB)

I created new lofts in the previous post cause I felt the surface input was unreliable/redundant, since I don’t know how you created them, I wasn’t sure if data structure/order will always have the same relationship between the lines and surface if you decided to change something upstream.

1 Like

Thank You Yu! The more solutions the better. Sorry, it seems I didnt check your script properly enough.