SubD pipe command request

Hi @Mikie2,
There is also a Grasshopper version of the command on the way, which will expose all the sorts of settings that the old Fatten Gh component did.


That’s wonderful to hear. I just so admire all the development you guys are doing and how amazing Rhino is and always has been. Seems I wish for something and it comes true time and time again. So stoked!

1 Like

Is it just me or does “SubDThickenCurves” seem like a strange name for this command? SubDPipe seems a lot more intuitive and discoverable. I’m sure I’ll get used to it, but it seems like an odd name to me.


i’ve asked this question, too.

Funny :joy:, it does seem way more logical doesn’t it.

So the Pipe command allows SubD output that will use the curve control point count to influence edge loops. This is totally separate from what SubDThickenCurves does by the way and is I bet not compatible to merge together with it. Should we remove SubD output as an option from Pipe and then rename SubDThickenCurves to SubDPipe in your opinions?

Another option might be ‘MultiPipe’
Since although it was primarily made with SubD output in mind, at some point the comand will also have the option to output meshes. In my mind the defining feature is that it handles junctions.


@BrianJ, thanks for clarifying. I was not aware that regular Pipe had a SubD output. That may be even more confusing.

I believe you should keep SubD output for Pipe since I imagine it will serve a different purpose. Can’t think of a specific use case at the moment, but since all these tools are so new, there’s a lot of learning/discovering left.

@DanielPiker, ‘Multipipe’ is not a bad suggestion. I believe it’s more intuitive and it automatically blends multiple curves into a Y-Branch style pipe structure.

From a commandline perspective, I believe it would be great if the command had the word ‘Pipe’ in it for Autocomplete and discoverability.


remember… this is the company that had both the command “roadkill” and “elmo”

(elmo still works btw)

clearly naming is a bit of a free for all around here… :wink:

so… my point is, Feel free to chime in if you have a strong opinion about naming here.

my .02 is multipipe

Hmm… I didn’t realize that the _Pipe command has a SubD output option. This complicates the naming logic but it does make me less perturbed by calling pipe with junctions “_SubDThickenCurve”.

@Mark_Landsaat has a point about having the word pipe in the name for commandline autocomplete and discoverability.

I’d be satisfied with _MultiPipe.

The only other option I can think of would be _BlendPipe or _SubDPipeBlend. This would draw a parallel to the _BlendCrv/_BlendSrf commands as they are all “stretchy”.

1 Like

Name change request filed as


as long as you have the base mesh, I thinks that one is more like “inset” + “Shell” then SubDiv rather than pipe?

Thank you @DanielPiker for the MultiPipe. Doing everything I was looking for when I requested a SubD pipe command. And I’m blown away by the speed and functionality delivered. Great work!


how do I do a subd pipe in Grasshopper?

Well, that’s good timing. It actually just became available.
If you are in v7 with your Update Frequency set to Service Candidate, get the latest download and it will appear under the Surface>SubD tab.

Here’s an example file showing the inputs: (107.2 KB)


@DanielPiker Nice! The new SubD tools are really neat. Love SubD fuse as well.
To MultiPipe: Amazing that it can can handle know so many struts in one node, also like the approach with the the size points, way quicker to use like that.
I wanted to ask if you consider also implementing mesh quads into MultiPipe (like one could use them in Fattener) I think being albe to close some of the spaces in between by using simple meshes would really nice in terms of design freedom. Also the different typ of caps where nice in Fattener

Hi @Christian_Schmidts
Thanks, glad to hear that.
Yes, in some future release MultiPipe will also allow faces as input. It’s more complex than for the old Fatten component though, since now nodes aren’t always radial about a single axis.
I’m thinking this will also be one possible way to handle the tricky case of near tangent curves -

and yes - some cap options would be good (either as part of MultiPipe, and/or a separate Cap component to also work on other SubD objects).


Great to hear! I was assuming that it takes a different approach than Fattener and possibly becoming more complex. Just made some more tests and I think multi strut nodes look definitely better than in any other tool we had before!

1 Like

I missed the cap options from the old version so I did my best to recreate them with native GH components.

Definition and clustered version here: A twofer: Multipipe Cap. SubD from Mesh crease options

I’m pretty I got my tree management right so it works with single and multiple inputs, but I’m not 100% sure.

Hi @DanielPiker
I have a project for which I need Multipipe to allow faces, just as you described, but I have not seen this feature included yet in the last release. Is there any chance it will come soon ?