Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

line mk3 with AB and OD modes #2294

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 17, 2018
Merged

line mk3 with AB and OD modes #2294

merged 3 commits into from
Nov 17, 2018

Conversation

vicdoval
Copy link
Collaborator

@vicdoval vicdoval commented Oct 30, 2018

Addressed problem description

The line node does not accept multiple inputs on the size socket
Also if you want to make a line from A to B in Sverchok you have to deal with vector evaluation or another tricks.
This also happens if you want to create a line from one origin point with one direction.
The new node tries to be friendly for new users and to mimic the classical definitions of a line

Preflight checklist

Put an x letter in each brackets when you're done this item:

  • Code changes complete.
  • Code documentation complete.
  • Documentation for users complete (or not required, if user never sees these changes).
  • Manual testing done.
  • Unit-tests implemented.
  • Ready for merge.

@vicdoval
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Images for docs:
line1
line2
line3
line4
line5
line6

@zeffii
Copy link
Collaborator

zeffii commented Oct 30, 2018

interesting, i won't oppose.

I also wouldn't oppose having a dedicated node for the new features, "line topology iterator" (topoloft).

@zeffii
Copy link
Collaborator

zeffii commented Nov 8, 2018

i've been busy moving Sverchok to blender 2.8, and have not had time to do due diligence here. Hence tagging @DolphinDream.

@vicdoval
Copy link
Collaborator Author

vicdoval commented Nov 8, 2018

It is not a big change, except of changing the class names in the test.
@zeffii i have been following your updates on the 2.8 prerelease (huge!) and i was not sure if it should wait to this commit to be merged.
I also paused the docs update waiting for the review but maybe i should finish them and merge everything if there are not complains

@zeffii
Copy link
Collaborator

zeffii commented Nov 8, 2018

@vicdoval for most nodes the conversion to 2.8 is a painless process. By all means keep coding for 2.79 as if nothing has changed. Generators and Effectors.

The Curve/PolyLine/BMesh/GLviewer nodes are the only nodes that I would actively discourage making changes to for 2.79, because their code in 2.8 is about 70%+ different.

2.8 is still a little quirky with some unexpected introduction of bugs, as soon as I understand them i'll document them and point at which nodes need more dedicated tweaking.

@vicdoval
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Lets keep it up!

@nortikin
Copy link
Owner

i like aproach. You kept this scheme and added A to B and direction, it was needed, but i used to go dificult way, not even see this issue. Thanks!!!
line01
line02

@vicdoval
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Can I merge this? Because it was created before lasts nodes Gcode Exporter and Evaluate Image and I'm not sure if it will overwrite the index.md or just the line I changed...

@zeffii zeffii merged commit 4a85936 into nortikin:master Nov 17, 2018
@zeffii
Copy link
Collaborator

zeffii commented Nov 17, 2018

most of the time the github conflict checker does a good job at bringing conflicts to our attention.

@enzyme69
Copy link
Collaborator

Wooh.. maybe can make fur using this ...
screen shot 2018-11-18 at 10 25 26 am

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants