Dealga McArdle

> Being able to get the exact number of points in one pass is what I would like to do in all likelyhood the operation you describe is relatively heavy....

in that case i look forward to seeing the solution :)

@portnov something like ```python """ >in shape_v v >in shape_f s in count s d=50 n=2 out verts v """ from sverchok.utils.field.probe import field_random_probe from sverchok.utils.field.scalar import SvBvhAttractorScalarField from sverchok.nodes.analyzer.bbox_mk3...

@portnov sweet :) cobbling this together was relatively painless.

something like ```python """ >in shape_v v >in shape_f s in count s d=50 n=2 out verts v """ from sverchok.utils.field.probe import field_random_probe from sverchok.utils.field.scalar import SvBvhAttractorScalarField from sverchok.nodes.analyzer.bbox_mk3 import...

ok. perfect. @portnov ```python """ >in shape_v v >in shape_f s in count s d=50 n=2 out out_verts v """ # - number of points are not guaranteed # -...

but isn't this kind of ...very much... like 

yes! i see. many possibilities

with a distance parameter, the "number of points" becomes a function of the `minimum distance`. a `merge by distance` post processing step would achieve this ( as a cheap solution,...

> Do you get the exact number wanted with that? maybe i'm being thick here, but the exact number of points is a function of point distance and vice versa...