I'm not sure if you've moved on or if you have come up with another solution, but I recently did something similar and came up with a pretty accurate solution. Simply put a list of planar surfaces into the definition. You may need to flip the normal vector, but there is a note in the definition explaining. Let me know if it works.
Thanks a lot P.
It's great! Many thanks :)
I just saw this post-it on your defintion.
Does it mean you don't want people to use the definition for their professional project?
It could be an interresting debate whether GH definition or scripts could be copywritten.
I feel that the spirit surrounding Rhino scripts/GH is an open-source one but i can totaly understand that after working a lot on something one would prefer not to allow other people use the solution professionaly.
I am having mixed feeling about sharing everything myself, but when i see how much people have helped me and the level of what is already being shared i feel i should help anyone who needs it...
What's your feeling about it? btw i had an interresting conversation with an intellectual property lawyer regarding copyrights in Architecture and also about the contemporary idea of Open-Source in Architecture and the problems it causes: http://arthurmani.googlepages.com/futurepractice
thanks again, hope to create an interresting conversation:)
Arthur, definitely an interesting conversation! After researching the marching cubes algorithm and finding out it was patented, I thought lot about this. Then I saw Helmut Pottman in Berlin and he was discussing their patented approach for modelling planar quad meshes. Its an interesting area..what are the limits to the generality of the copyright?
Luis - I'm glad that you responded to this because a lot of the definitions that you have posted were essential in allowing me to move forward with some of the projects I've been working on. (Hexy-Planar for one). I'm posting some pictures of a series I was working on that wouldn't have happened had it not been for yourself and Chris palmer of U.Colorado.
Arthur - I too have struggled with how much i'm going to post in the forum and to what extent I want the work to be attributed to myself. The conclusion that I've come to is that every time someone posts a definition the rest of the community gets to explore it, build upon it, and create better things. This spirit is really exciting and while I have been a member since the days of 0.004 release on the Google group I didn't always participate, and now that I'm comfortable with the definitions I create I'm giving back a little. My general feeling is that once the definition is in the public domain its kind of fair game and I would simply appreciate being credited with forming at least part of the final product. The small things that I try to help with are not enough to base an entire piece of work off of, so a significant amount of building on top of or manipulating will need to happen, and in that case the work becomes distinct to whomever is using my small piece. The article you linked to is very interesting and it definitely brings up a good question that I think definitely warrants more discussion. Perhaps its own thread.
I'd really be interested to what see Taz has to say about the whole situation because the grillage fabrication definitions that have been posted are amazing utilities and could be something I would image being a stand alone plug-in for fabricators.