if you search the forums a bit, there's been some discussion about this. I'm not personally satisfied that I understand all the implications of Geometric Sets vs Ordered Geometric Sets in practice (nor Hybrid Design in general), but FWIW you may benefit from reading the other comments...
The difference between the two different types of Geometric Set are the order of the elements within the set.
In the normal GS, the sequence of elements doesn't matter. You can re-order things anyway you want (by element type, alphabetically, etc) with no problems.
In the OGS, the sequence of elements is important: Parent geometry must come before (be higher in the tree) it's childred geometry. If things are out of parent/child order, you typically get an Update Cycle error. You must be very careful when elements are re-ordered in a OGS.
Thanks... I've gained some confidence in my understanding of the differences GS vs. OGS. I'm grasping the concepts. I'd like to futher my understanding and create an "in practice/practicle" example so I may better understand how/why this is useful. I'm leaning toward the benefits of a parametrically linked set. Does this mean the OGS would be a better container for contextually linked geometry?
Cheers to all that post. What a fantastic resource!
Where was this wealth of knowledge several years ago when I first sat behind this monstrosity?
Personaly, I don't use OGSs because they are too much work and I'm lazy. The only benefit I see is that they make you think about your tree organization.