Unifying two points that are NURBS surface handles.

Up the back of the top flat surface of this 3D curve (NURBS surface),
There are two handles.

-How can I unify these points such that they are x,y,z identical,
but also one point and not just coincident, as NURBS handles?

Such that the opposite edge may become one point for a triangle?


joined-curves.blend (614 KB)

I’m not sure if you wan’t to merge these two or not, but here is my solution to this problem, click on one of your vertices that you wish to be the top of your triangle, then pres shift+s, choose cursor to selected, press “.” to assign manipulator to cursor, right click on the other vertex that you want to position in the first one, then press s for scale and type 0 in while scaling. That should be it. But before I go here are some pictures that will help you with this problem

with Nurbs you cannot have triangles !
so only way is too male 2verts at same location to emulate tri’s

happy bl

-Are people sure about this? I have discovered that it is possible to “collapse vertices”
some of the NURBS surface default handles away.

-There should be a way to produce a triangle handle. Does anyone else
know how to do so, if possible, or if some new feature is on the way?

Can someone else address my question on #4 here, please?

Just a quick one: Do i have it right? No? Why? What had you on mind and where should i look for the rule set to comply?

Edit: Belongs to your another thread here

This is one of the things I have in mind. My questions become,

-Do each of the grid squares in the #6 image, on the left object, have internal
curvature, or are they only flat approximation?

-I have situations where I want to combine two corner handles on a
squarish NURBS Surface to from one handle only, for the head of a triangle.
How do I acheive that, or amy I forced to leave to overlapping corners
as an apex, which I wish to avoid?

  • These internally have triangles as approximation unit. That’s embedded down to the hardware level.
    Point there was that you haven’t defined surface in this example explicitly - it’s like defining line using one point only.
  • I am afraid you will have to have overlapping corners as it was pointed by RickyBlender in #3 previously.
  • I am afraid you will have to have overlapping corners as it was pointed by RickyBlender in #3 previously.

-If I am loading my 3D object into an API 3D universe, where external collisions are enabled, operating
and being checked for, then this “overlapping corners” approach won’t leave any gaps?

-Will this overlapping corners approach lead to two surfaces being generated, one over the other,
when only one is desired?

-Are there plans to solve this area of non-implementation in Blender
(consolidating NURBS Surface handles to triangle, auto generation <f>
of a nurbs surface within a non-planar set of vertices, edges
Beziers, Paths or NURBS curves?

What is being thought about and considered here about these
construction shortfalls at the moment?

I know this is a highly unsatisfactory answer, but Blender is no NURBS modeler after all. Blender is a polygonal/subdivision surface modeling software with a few rudimentary NURBS functions attached to it. NURBS is not Blender’s core competence and it will never be. So, I wouldn’t hold my breath for any major overhauls and additions to the NURBS functionality to come anytime soon (if at all).

In other words: If your workflow depends on extensive use of NURBS, then Blender might not the right software for you, as high levels of frustration will be inevitable.

There is the GSOC project New nurbs tools
being completed right now
it will have equivalent of T spline added and some new tools too

but wont be added to official BL before next year i think !
and it wont have the tools you talked about !
this does not make the New Nurbs as powerfull as the external soft made to work with Nurbs !

happy bl

Is there any more Info about this new nurbstools?
Im very curious :slight_smile:

-What is a

T spline
, under the context of the add on under development, as mentioned in #11?

That’s all I needed to know!