Hi Rchitekt, first, it makes no sense to me. There should not be a difference between a referenced curve and a curve generated by a Grasshopper component. I'll look into this to see how the most recent build behaves.
Second, you'll be glad to learn I've added Union, Difference and Intersection components for closed curves to Grasshopper, so this will be much easier in the future: http://groups.google.com/group/grasshopper3d/web/Curve%20Regions.png -- David Rutten [email protected] Robert McNeel & Associates On Feb 10, 3:47 am, Rchitekt <[email protected]> wrote: > Sorry... I forgot to post the screenshot. Here's it > is:http://grasshopper3d.googlegroups.com/web/Ref%20geometry%20vs%20volat... > > On Feb 9, 6:47 pm, Rchitekt <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Is there any difference in the way Grasshopper deals with Referenced > > Geometry vs. Volatile Data (aside from the fact that one has > > persistent data and the other is not). The reason I ask if that I > > have 2 closed polylines that overlap each other, and I'm trying to get > > the inside polyline... almost like a Curve Difference instead of a > > Curve Union. So, I've created a simple definition that creates a > > planar srf out of both polylines and then using the Solid Union it > > creates an object with a set of different faces. Using a little math > > you can eliminate all of the smaller faces so that your left with the > > one big face in the middle which is just like creating a Curve > > Difference (I think). Anyway, the code seems to work when I select > > each curve from Rhino using referenced geometry. However, if I feed > > those same curves into the curve data using volatile data, the Solid > > Union fails which throws off the rest of the definition. So, my > > question is, why would it work with referenced geometry but not with > > volatile data? > > I guess I can always bake the curves into my scene and then re-assign > > them back into my definition but it seems like I'm having to go around > > my butt to get to by elbow. > > Thoughts?
