similar network, different results

[STERNontwerp]

When I start a network with a NAME(object name "1") node and split it up it gives a different result from when I start two networks with 2 NAME(object name "1") nodes. Why?

(I've made a fence based on the Fibonacci-list, which works alright. And as a workaround for the MIRROR-node, I copied the network and made a negative version)

[AlanW]

Hi, not sure why this created a split in the fence but if you split the two top files and run then separately you don't get the offset in the fence.

Also if you have a +100 in the middle of your script it goes left and the "F" disappears but place the -100 the "F" appears again. Is this by design and how did this occur?

Edited February 17, 2016 by Alan Woodwell

[STERNontwerp]

Hi Allen,

I think you are referring to the -100 with the MUL-node. It's the distance between the balusturs of the fence. +100 wil go right and probably won't be visible because it makes a fence that's a duplicate of the fence to the right. (The F-balusters are placed according to the Fibonacci-sequence)

You are right to name the offset. That is the problem. Do you know why the NAME node gives the offset if I use 1 NAME-node with 2 connections, but not if I use 2 seperate but identical NAME-nodes?

I've tried splitting it up after the LIST EXPLODE node, but that didn't help.

I can make a workaround, but I rather have a good solution.

Thanks for your comment.

Ernst van der Vecht, architect

[STERNontwerp]

Hi Allen,

I think you are referring to the -100 with the MUL-node. It's the distance between the balusturs of the fence. +100 wil go right and probably won't be visible because it makes a fence that's a duplicate of the fence to the right. (The F-balusters are placed according to the Fibonacci-sequence)

You are right to name the offset. That is the problem. Do you know why the NAME node gives the offset if I use 1 NAME-node with 2 connections, but not if I use 2 seperate but identical NAME-nodes?

I've tried splitting it up after the LIST EXPLODE node, but that didn't help.

I can make a workaround, but I rather have a good solution.

Thanks for your comment.

Ernst van der Vecht, architect

[SBarrettWalker]

Hello - The difference between the two networks is that when you have two separate Name nodes, there are actually two different networks, meaning the object inside the name node gets used by one network and then another different one. This is possible because the network doesn't change the original object inside the name node so it can be used over and over again. It would be the same if you had one name node, and attached it to one network, ran it, then detached it and attached it to the next. If you want to run both actions as one network, simply make a copy of the name node using the copy node, and run one output to the negative definition and one to the positive definition.

[STERNontwerp]

Dear Sarah,

Thanks for your comment.

I cleaned it up and made it work better. Here's the result.

Ernst van der Vecht