Hi David,
Thanks for the help.  Straight Sections or Aligning Section curves
doesn't seem to work.  It still returns an open Brep.  However,
rebuilding the loft does work.  So, I can use that for now.  But, it
didn't seem to do this in the last version (0.5).  This same setup
returned a untrimmed surface in version (0.5).  I know the Loft
component was kind of re-built in version 0.6, but it would be great
if we could choose the output type.  Or a MergeSrf would work as
well.  Thanks again.
-Andy

On Mar 25, 12:10 am, David Rutten <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> it's a Brep because Loft will sometimes create a Brep, depending on
> input curves and settings. If you enable Straight-Sections for example
> or if the seams of closed input curves do not match up.
>
> I suppose I'll have to add some sort of MergeSrf component to remedy
> this. What if you rebuild/refit your loft, do you get single surfaces
> then?
>
> --
> David Rutten
> [email protected]
> Robert McNeel & Associates
>
> On Mar 25, 4:49 am, Rchitekt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hey David,
> > Is there a reason that the output from a Loft component is a Brep?
> > Basically, I have some section curves that I'm lofting together, and
> > then I'd like to subdivide that surface by some interval.  However,
> > when I feed the output of the lofted surface into a generic surface
> > parameter... it turns red.  When I hover over the output from the Loft
> > component, it says "Open Brep" (which is why it's turning the surface
> > parameter red).  The original curves that form the loft were created
> > through volatile data inheritance.  The reason I bring that up, is
> > that I have another example, where I reference in 2 curves and then
> > feed those into a loft and the output reads "Untrimmed Surface".  So,
> > why would the loft output a surface with referenced geometry, but a
> > brep with volatile data inheritance?  I can't subdivide the Brep, so
> > is there a way to convert the open Brep back into a surface?  Or is
> > this a bug?
> > Thanks,
> > Andy

Reply via email to