I’m wishing that I didn’t have to spend a bunch of time by using MergeEdge before I can use MatchSrf on untrimmed surfaces. Can’t MatchSrf just ignore split edges on untrimmed surfaces?
Is there a script to make this smoother in the meantime?
matchsrf wish.3dm (113.8 KB)
You can always match by “Nearest” and then it will ignore the splits, so long as you feed in the appropriate edges. However, you might get a less than optimal match, since the surface being matched won’t adopt the parameterization of the target edge - but for quick and dirty work this is probably just fine. FWIW - I use Split and Merge edge so much I have them as my F3 and F4 keys, saves a ton of time.
I’m talking about the first step where Rhino asks ‘Select untimmed surface edge to change’. Rhino won’t let you select an untimmed surface if the edge is split on this step.
Rhino should essentially run MergeAllEdges on the surface and let me do my thing.
Ahhhh gotcha. Well I’d still suggest F-keying Split and Merge edges if this is something you find yourself doing a lot.
And if the edge also needs to rebuilt? Due to the whole having been ‘pulled away’ thing…
‘merge edge’ is just the half of it.
Expecting Rhino to ignore the nature of the edge transformations, is a weird thing to expect in the grand scheme of things. There might be other ways to look at this.
If only Rhino knew how to fillet edges and trim and extend them while ignoring them lol.
Yes, Rhino should automatically model all my design intent I’m subconsciously not imagining yet for sure.
Yeah, I’ve recently set up keys for those and I’m trying to get used to them. Along with these two, I also use ReplaceEdge a lot, along with scripts for pulling or projecting curves to the underlying surfaces. This week I was cleaning up and changing a bunch of garbage fillets from a solid modeling program, and those tools were 80% of the project.
Hi Peter - I don’t know … thinking… it might be fine to do that but I need to consult - I worry about ‘unintended consequences’… It might be better to for example, flash-highlight the edge and give a command line message rather than do nothing at all, which is admittedly not terribly helpful.
RH-80866 MatchSrf selection feedback
RH-80867 MatchSrf - allow split edges
-Pascal
Why would the edges need to be rebuilt? I don’t know that I’ve even needed to do that in order to make matchsrf work in the way that I need it to. Maybe you have an example.
sounds like a format conversion problem.
there used to be $15k-$20k programs exclusively for this process. probably still are a few.
cad exchanger is decent. but solid modeling programs will most likely have artifacts inevitably.
Because the edges ‘get pulled away’.
What does that mean? Example?
Yeah, I get those sometimes, but usually within tolerances. If it’s out of tolerance, I rebuild. Also I never use JoinEdge.
FWIW my MergeEdge hotkey definition looks like this:
Because of this:
I agree. While the warning label on that command is interesting haha. Not sure I’ve even tried that command much. It might help some users that just want to be ‘users’, but at the same time could make things worse down the line, depending on their workflow.
The unintended consequence here would be that it would reset all edge splits on a surface, which would be less than ideal imho.
The “ghost” of all former edge splits lives on in a surface edge until you exorcise the demons with RebuildEdges.
it’s turned into one of the main things I do when someone gives me a file to look at 
reveals where all the bad spots are. 
I’ve been reviewing this some more today, thanks to this thread I stumbled on 
This is the workflow I’ve compiled over the years:
1.) selpolysrf
2.) explode
3.) refresh shade
4.) rebuild edges <1xe-05>
5.) refresh shade
6.) join
7.) show edges
I should probably turn this into a macro or a script or a Eto Framework thingamajig
I have noted that Join seems to merge all edges of a surface before joining the surfaces together, even the edges that aren’t being joined, which does cause some issues for me when I need to keep track of a split that is not at the border when the surfaces touch. It would be best if MatchSrf did not do that - I do like it that MatchSrf preserves the splits on the rest of the surface edges.
Yes - it seems at least possible/plausible to do the merging under the hood for the purposes of the matching operation but not permanently, so to speak.
-Pascal
