OpenNest 2 - WTF #2 and #3 🤯

[Helvetosaur]

I have a nice, neatly set up definition that looks like this:

I save, close and re-open it and now it looks like this:

WTF!!!

The stupid panel and sliders that are attached by default come back and they are ADDED to my inputs…

AND
I place a Nest component on the canvas and it comes with all the default junk:

Ctrl+Z to undo the placement of the component and I get this:

All the extra junk is left behind on the canvas…

This is feeling like early Beta software…

[Joseph_Oster]

I feel your pain. ON2 is a disappointment and I stopped using it.

But why two threads?

OpenNest 1 --> OpenNest 2: Nesting Options - missing component?

I am converting a GH script using ON1 I made for someone who is nesting buildings for 3D printing into ON2… I figured out most of the differences, but I really don’t get why the options are now specified in a list panel… ON1: [image] ON2: [image] And to edit that list, one has to double click the panel, then it looks like this: [image] What’s up with that? Editing with sliders was much easier. Why isn’t there at least an ON Options component? I ended up making a simple list of num…

[Helvetosaur]

@Joseph_Oster

But why two threads?

I felt like this one deserved its own topic… They are slightly different, the second one would not have been completely necessary had my modifications made in the first one actually been saved correctly and worked.

[laurent_delrieu]

I think OpenNest Options is waiting for a panel so if there is something else it replace a panel.
You can try to add a panel like that as a buffer, it will surely do the trick.

I feel your frustration but I think Petras is alone developing this free tool.

[Petras_Vestartas]

I will push today the release of OpenNest, without this annoying panel.
Thank you for lovely comments.

[Helvetosaur]

@laurent_delrieu

You can try to add a panel like that as a buffer, it will surely do the trick.

Yes, that seems to help - one also should not try replacing any of the lower 3 inputs either, otherwise they get doubled. So, it’s looking for a list of strings as options? I guess so, because this also seems to work:

@Petras_Vestartas

Thank you for lovely comments.

Apologise for the harshness Petras…
…but it just seemed totally illogical for what is otherwise a very nice tool…

[Petras_Vestartas]

OpenNest 2_2_1_0 - demo

Example files are updated: https://www.food4rhino.com/en/app/opennest#comment-42782

Installation update: via Package Manager.

New Version: 2_2_2_0 MAC/WIN

No more annoying panels…

Why three components instead of one?
Because multiple users have diverse requests, it made the most sense to create separate data structures: one for sheets and one for geometry. This way, I can process everything internally, visually inspect it, and only then proceed with nesting. Additionally, I added Rhino geometry nesting that detects internal polygon holes.

I’ve documented all “new” features and “interface changes” in the example files on Food4Rhino. The previous interface may have been convenient, but in terms of coding, it relied on multiple if statements that didn’t adequately address the issues users raised. There will certainly be other unforeseen issues and improved nesting strategies, but I’m actively making notes from the McNeel threads and gradually implementing improvements.

[Helvetosaur]

Hmmm… PackageManager updated ON2. Opening Grasshopper showed this:

OK, looks like the ‘sheets’ component got changed:

[Petras_Vestartas]

Sheets have been changed due to long discussion here:

OpenNest for Rhino8 - plugin update

NEW RELEASE [OpenNest 2_2_1_0 - demo] Example files: https://www.food4rhino.com/en/app/opennest#comment-42782 Installation update: via Package Manager. Version: 2_2_2_0 MAC/WIN Be aware that sheets and geometry has its own components. It was done on purpose to fulfill various user requests. Sheets and Geometry now has its own OpenNest data types. Please review the example files.

Do examples work?

[Helvetosaur]

Got it working now, thanks.

Only thing I don’t understand is how the ‘rows’ in the sheets component actually works. In my mind a ‘row’ is horizontal and a ‘column’ is vertical.

If I set it to 1 rows and 2 copies, I would have expected two rectangles distributed along X. Instead, they are distributed along Y. If I set it to 2 rows and 2 copies, I get them distributed along X. If I set it to 2 rows and 10 copies, I get two vertical columns of 5 rectangles each.

I think ‘rows’ is actually being interpreted as ‘columns’ in this case.

[Petras_Vestartas]

True, this is is misleading, since it a list partititioning rather than a grid.

I will change the input names and description.