Can someone explain why the sweep cannot trim more when the rectangle’s dimensions are more significant than 0.08 (8 cm)?
I’m going crazy to solve it.
sweepone_issue.gh (47.9 KB)
It doesn’t work if the rectangle is BIGGER then 0.08, not SMALLER. At 0.04 it works here too.
Does someone from McNeel have an answer? It’s a point that should be solved or explained to everyone, not only myself.
You are completely right, I did not realize about it 
If you set it to None and then you Join the result, you may get something similar to what you are looking for. But yes, I am getting the same result as you with the Sweep1.
If I try to do it manually in Rhino, I can get the result by choosing Untrimmed miters, but I do not see that option in Grasshopper. But you will still get some problems in the faces.
Also, I think the potential reason for Sweep1 not working the way you want is because of a tolerance issue. The two vertical sweeps have orthogonal faces, but the upper one has two curved faces, so trimming creates problems. It is never going to be possible to have three coplanar faces in the front and the back. When the side of the cross section is small, the trimming is easier than when it is larger.
Hi Fernando,
Your last point may be correct.
Could someone help create, if possible, a python3 script with the “untrimmed miter” option inside?
Could someone explain why this option in Rhino works?
Thanks again,
Roy
Be aware that even if you use the Untrimmed miters option in Rhino, the curved faces will never be vertical.
The only way to avoid that situation is to have a planar rail and it works fine with the kind of rail you have (like if it was a hole) both in Rhino and Grasshopper.
Yep, I saw the “untrimmed mitre” issue.
About the second part of your post, of course, with a planar rail, it works, but I need the rail I need…lol
oh, sorry for misunderstanding. There’s a geometric impossibility for that sweep to work.
here’s a very awkward workaround…
sweepone_issue_awkward_wo.gh (65.3 KB)
i know
at the very least it’s not a geometrical impossibility
once you figure it out “why” what you’re asking is not possible, you can figure out some workarounds, which would be by definition only “good enough”
1 Like
Hi Dale,
Very beautiful! Thank You.
Two questions:
Is it possible to sweep on a closed curve?
Is it possible to write your script using RHINOSCRIPTSYNTAX?
Thanks again,
Roy
SweepSegmentedClosedCrv.gh (8.2 KB)