Problem with closed spline join

[Carlos Matias]

Hi
I have an issue an issue with a closed spline not joinning correctly:


How can I make those rails join correctly ?

Best regards.
Carlos

[iToo]

Probably this is caused by the orientation or the base spline. To get correct results, we suggest to create it on the XY plane. Once constructed, you can rotate both the spline and RC to any other plane.

Please, send us the file to check if this is the problem. We also suggest the best way to fix the existing object.

[Carlos Matias]

Hi Carlos!
Perhaps you can tell me how to have the same angle rotation for the cloned elements at the joining point of the curve.
See the attached sample.

Best regards.
Carlos

[iToo]

Ok, i see the problem: RailClone computes the banking angle using the previous angles along the spline, in order to create a smooth transition. Unfortunately this method generates a "break" in the start/end point of closed splines.

It seems this is a common issue, because the Sweep modifier has the same problem (see attached screenshot). Ideally, would be necessary to include a "banking" editor, so the user can adjust the angles in each case. This feature was already in our RC wishlist, although it is not simple to implement.

Unfortunately, the only solution in this case would be to edit the RC mesh, rotating manually the final pieces.

[Carlos Matias]

Thanks Carlos.

I remember using a tool a long time ago (in a galaxy far away...) where rotating the vertexs with the standard rotation tool was enough to set the banking for each point. With smooth banking transition between points.

I don't know if this process can be applied to RailClone with Max data structure....

I'll let you dream about it tonight and have the solution tomorrow morning

Best regards.
Carlos Matias.
http://65bits.com

[George]

Carlos, couldn't you have the first spline point grab its angle from the end point (if its a closed spline), etc.? So wrap the lookup ie. SplinePoints[index %  SplinePoints.Count]

[iToo]

If i remember well, we tried this but there were some problems to implement it. Anyway, i will take a look to it again.