# Two pipe enhancements

**URL:** <https://discourse.mcneel.com/t/two-pipe-enhancements/109194>\
**Category:** Serengeti (Rhino BETA)\
**Created:** [September 23, 2020, 9:32pm UTC](https://discourse.mcneel.com/t/two-pipe-enhancements/109194 "2020-09-23T21:32:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 6\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rabbit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/mcneel/user_avatar/discourse.mcneel.com/rabbit/32/489011_2.png) [@rabbit](https://discourse.mcneel.com/u/rabbit)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2020, 9:32pm UTC](https://discourse.mcneel.com/t/two-pipe-enhancements/109194/1 "2020-09-23T21:32:40Z")

</div>

I’d like a couple of options added to the pipe command.  
These are both available in some form as scripts, but I feel they would be better as native options…

1\> a command to re-create the pipe centre lines.

I have a (Pascal?) script that will do this, but it won’t work in V6 or 7, so I have to do use it in V5.  
The script needs the pipe to be exploded, and then has to be run on each segment to re-create the centre line of that individual segment, then all the curves need to be selected and joined.  
It’s a bit of a drama to do this, but it’s far more drama to try to do it without the script.  
I’d like an option that simply re-creates the centreline with no mucking about - within the pipe command, like “restore centreline”.

2\> an option to choose to create square / rectangular pipes.

I’ve mentioned this before, to howls of derision, but I feel it’s simply a logical and useful option that many people besides myself would expect, and can see no reason why it shouldn’t be included.  
I’ve been around long enough to remember the fight to include the ability to dimension entities in rhino, and all the negative claptrap and assertions that real modellers would have no truck with sissy drafting add-ons, and to go and dimension in another program etc etc, and we can see where that ended, so I’m not scared off by similar comments about not needing a square pipe option…  
So I’m asking once again for this to please be included in the pipe options before the V7 release.

Cheers  
rabbit

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Helvetosaur](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/mcneel/user_avatar/discourse.mcneel.com/helvetosaur/32/635974_2.png) [@Helvetosaur](https://discourse.mcneel.com/u/Helvetosaur)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2020, 10:38pm UTC](https://discourse.mcneel.com/t/two-pipe-enhancements/109194/2 "2020-09-23T22:38:33Z")

</div>

I think the main problem with #1 is that a “pipe” doesn’t really know it’s a pipe object - it’s just a NURBS surface with a circular cross section - which could also be a polysurface with trimmed miters (kinks)… It doesn’t “remember” its generating curve If it has been deleted, so it has to be re-derived somehow.

The main issue as far as I know with #2 (having scripted square pipes myself) is determining the orientation of the square at the beginning and end as well as any possible twist along the way…

Not saying it’s not possible, just that it’s probably more complex than it seems on the surface, which is possibly why we don’t have them yet.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Brock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/mcneel/user_avatar/discourse.mcneel.com/john_brock/32/476283_2.png) [@John\_Brock](https://discourse.mcneel.com/u/John_Brock)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2020, 10:59pm UTC](https://discourse.mcneel.com/t/two-pipe-enhancements/109194/3 "2020-09-23T22:59:04Z")

</div>

Both of those enhancements are on the future wish list multiple times and have been for years.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![fares.boulamaali](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/mcneel/user_avatar/discourse.mcneel.com/fares.boulamaali/32/476788_2.png) [@fares.boulamaali](https://discourse.mcneel.com/u/fares.boulamaali)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2020, 11:00pm UTC](https://discourse.mcneel.com/t/two-pipe-enhancements/109194/4 "2020-09-23T23:00:32Z")

</div>

hi rabbit

I can give you a tip she can work well in these situations  
run the ExtractIsoCurve command  
make two isocurve in both sides of the pipe. then TweenCurves  
this will give you exactly the mathematically correct location of the original curve

[https://global.discourse-cdn.com/mcneel/uploads/default/original/4X/a/4/4/a444a7f459ef000292271e69e82b8de9711fc7cb.mp4](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/mcneel/uploads/default/original/4X/a/4/4/a444a7f459ef000292271e69e82b8de9711fc7cb.mp4)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![rabbit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/mcneel/user_avatar/discourse.mcneel.com/rabbit/32/489011_2.png) [@rabbit](https://discourse.mcneel.com/u/rabbit)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2020, 11:07pm UTC](https://discourse.mcneel.com/t/two-pipe-enhancements/109194/5 "2020-09-23T23:07:44Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Brock](#):
>
> and have been for years.

well, that’s pretty much my point right there…

cheers  
rabbit

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![John\_Brock](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/mcneel/user_avatar/discourse.mcneel.com/john_brock/32/476283_2.png) [@John\_Brock](https://discourse.mcneel.com/u/John_Brock)\
**Post date:** [September 23, 2020, 11:36pm UTC](https://discourse.mcneel.com/t/two-pipe-enhancements/109194/6 "2020-09-23T23:36:29Z")

</div>

So far, the value to effort required has not moved it to the “next up” list.  
There have always been more valuable projects to work on.  
That will not always remain the case.

In the mean time, there are work-arounds like Tween Curve and the rail sweeps.