Grasshopper

algorithmic modeling for Rhino

Hi guys!

I'm quite new on grasshopper, and I'm trying to map a geometry on a irregular surface, avoiding that the geometry will be distorted where the surface is smaller.

I searched on the forum and I manage to achieve this result (see image), but as you can see for some reasons the geometry is not rotated in the same direction. I would like to achieve the result in the second image.

Thanks a lot!

Views: 608

Attachments:

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

chiar2_2017Nov11b.gh seems to work OK - deleted chiar2_2017Nov11a.gh.

  • '# Horiz.' = 27
  • '# Vert.' = 33
  • 'H Size' = 1.3
  • 'V Size' = 1.4
  • 'depth' = 0.1
  • 'height' = 2.0

Thanks for definition. With Prusa i3 MK2S I got this vase which saves water :)
Attachments:

Nicely done - congrats. If you'd like a non-leaky one you might try https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2639888. It looks like this:

thank u so much again , you help is very important but I already told u =) 

I thought Sph and Cyl were part of basic Grasshopper

They are!  Did this plugin replace the native components?  That would be bad...

I'd say the answer is Yes. But simply removing the astools_version702 directory from the GH Components directory got me to the error messages you showed above, and then I simply had to put back the Sph and Cyl components using the same names. 

I think this is a legitimate quirk (not sure it can be called a bug) that David may want to deal with (when he's got nothing better to do of course.)

When I brought this code from the other thread, the most relevant part for this thread was 'SrfMorph'.  A creative detail came along with it that was at the core of the other thread, which is the use of two 'Graph Mapper' components; they distribute isocurves in a non-linear fashion, which can create some cool effects.

They got removed along the way without realizing that various details of that code are no longer necessary.

Here is the much simplified version:

Attachments:

Here's the history behind the disappearing Graph Mappers:

When I first adapted Joseph's solution to my geometry I tried quite a few different graph types & settings for both Graph Mappers. I saw what they did, but the results just seemed unexpected and sort of out of place to me because they placed the bumps or holes in unexpected places. I wanted an effect that covered the entire underlying surface completely and evenly.  

In a different situation (like an architectural one) I can see how the Graph Mappers might be useful, but after I decided I would always use only the Linear graph type it was just simpler to take them out. So I did.

Yeah, I totally get that Birk.  The point of my post today is that without the graph mapping of isocurves, quite a bit of the complexity in that code is also eliminated: two 'Range' components, two 'Consec' components, 'Dom² (Construct Domain²)', 'Pt', 'Iso Curve (Iso)' and 'SrfSplit'.

All replaced by 'Divide Domain²' and 'Isotrim (SubSrf)'.

Seems like an important distinction to me.

RSS

Translate

Search Grasshopper

Photos

  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2017   Created by Scott Davidson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service