Also, I noticed there is no snapping to align wires?
And components don’t have a aligning help?
Will this later be incorporated into GH? I really like my wires straight… Also having different wire styles would be nice too, instead of Bezier, having it straight, or what @TomTom did was also nice.
Granted it looks a bit like the guy on deep space nine (Ferengi), but hardly unsettling. Obviously an appropriate icon here is subjective.
The images you posting aren’t particularly clear on sending or receiving, but point taken.
Icon design aside, I’m a little concerned about the current approach here.
I do agree with @DavidRutten that hidden wires can sometimes be a lazy solution, or at least make it easier to be lazy, but I also think that, when used deliberately, they can be extremely useful.
Not every connection needs to remain visually explicit at all times. For example, I often use clearly named groups around inputs and outputs to document long-distance connections without filling the canvas with wires.
Like this:
That allows a larger definition to remain very readable and tidy:
I previously had a version of the same definition with no hidden wires and extensive use of relays:
In this specific case, I found that the relays added very little to understanding the definition. If anything, they introduced more visual clutter for connections that were already clearly documented.
That brings me back to GH2. Having to add two extra components per connection just to replicate hidden-wire behaviour feels like a significant downside.
Hidden wires in GH1 also have a big discoverability advantage: select the component and the connection becomes visible. Press Ctrl+Left Arrow and you are taken back to the input component.
With Shout/Listen in GH2, the connection still seems invisible, with only the shared name linking them. In a large definition, that could make connected components much harder to find. Am I missing a way to quickly reveal or navigate between them?
It seems universal for me. Humans have ears bottom torso … Like David says some whimsy is good.
You perhaps miss these
My main concern on gh2 and other new tools in rhino 9 is the fact that as a programmer there are some basics tools in rhinocommon isopod gh1 and gh2. My main concern are scalar and vector fields. If not possible try to be able to read agnostic functions!!!
See here
@ShynnSup I see your point. I just wonder what type of client have expectations on icon design!!! Mine are more result based.
They probably wouldn’t care at all, I am the one with high design standards.
Telepathy plugin in GH1 has already perfected this shout/listen functionality and I believe that GH2 can learn from this.
First telepathy components are colored blue and it is visually really easy to know that data is sent to some where or it is received from somewhere.
Second is that every shouter is named so you can set up inputs to some other part by just selecting a key or typing it in in listener.
Don’t all the GH2 components allow users to set their colour?
So you could make shout/listens blue.
No, the colours of components are defined in a skin, which only allows different colours for different states (active, disabled+selected, hidden+selected, etc). This was designed to be user editable, but there’s no interface for that yet.
Each parameter which draws previews has a colour override, but that applies only to the shapes it draws in the viewport, not to the colour it has on the canvas.
Looks good 
Not sure this is the right place to post this… GH2 is probably as revolutionary as GH is - at least in my user (but not a pro) user experience. I use Rhino only because of GH and it’s my go to IDE since 5-7 years. Because I intend to design the final product with GH only (mostly because i also use RhinoCAM (RC)), there’s a big break in workflows between generative and RC where any change in GH means a whole manual redo of all RC ops, checks etc. The devs at RhinoCAM are working on it but it’s still limited). I know about Barkbeetle (the right idea in terms of generative but not in terms of what you see is what you get) and never tried it in real life TBH because of the risks (personal funds at stake).
So, i love generative programming since the 1990’s (using Hypercard (and somewhat the same Filemaker at some point given my approach to data flow abstraction) and i carried it until last May for generative computing approaches to automation in Enterprise storage management) and GH is just my new paradigm into a modern IDE bridging different needs (not for knowledge management but for 3D manufacturing in the least). And beyond all hope it is a solution that works like FreeHand to draw environment in 3D with balls of steel in terms of ease and intuitive user experience (unlike other products).
I just love GH because of it’s reactivity and results. I can create almost anything from scratch. I love the similarity(ies) in designing a GUI and connecting words of a field and auto casting most of the process (single value or array of values) like it was in Hypercard. What i miss is the GUIs which should be simpler in GH designology… I love the fact you can script modules in C# or Python (got to start one day soon i say since 5 years - but haven’t found the occasion)… I’ve found times where scripts are better and thanks to those who helped!
What’s really missing in GH is that simplicity that Hypercard gave you to find data in fields with simpler scripting (Hypertalk (Hypercard’s scripting language) was so natural to express like the topleft of an object for examples).
Simpler functions that give an answer out of a box or a formated text out of a field. I know you can do so in GH but these patterns are dark - dont want to mess with kind of functions. GH begs for a Hypertalk and a GUI builder - if i may say so. Drop a viewport in your card’s graphic object for your presentation (you could drop an interactive quicktime movie at some point) and you can automate 3D presentations all of a sudden.
Hope this can inspire anyone… Sorry i dont have the skills to script it. Im getting old and just hoping someone can benefit from previous goodies and excellent productivity IDEs from before.
I faced a similar situation many years ago where changing my Grasshopper parameters required manual redo of all my CAM work on the resulting Grasshopper model.
I was able to get around this by using MadCAM which is scriptable. So with any change to my Grasshopper model, a single click on my MadCAM script would regenerate all of the CAM tool paths and G-code.
Eventually I programmed my own CAM system within Grasshopper using the GH-Python component. Now my CAM updates automatically with any change to the Grasshopper model.
I see that you’re aware of Bark Beatle already, but you may also be interested in checking out KaroCAM made by the user SkySurfer here.
Having a built-in system of CAM components for GH2 would be absolutely wonderful. Hopefully someday that may happen.
