Ivan Kiryakov no offense taken - I value your input (that's why I made an account here). I think you bring up several valid points. Further to that, there are some parameters in this model that could be revisited relative to the fabrication process (3D powder printing). For example, some of the small mesh apertures became so small that the loose powder fused to the model - these apertures should have a minimum limit that prevents this from happening. Also, some of the interior cavities were too small or too deep to allow the vacuum tool inside, which meant that we had to excavate the part with the weight of the powder still inside - as you can imagine this caused breaks along some of the thinner spanning members of the topology. This could be avoided by enlarging or shortening some of these cavities, or simply by splitting the topology prior to the print and assembling it afterward.
Brian Ringley
Ivan Kiryakov no offense taken - I value your input (that's why I made an account here). I think you bring up several valid points. Further to that, there are some parameters in this model that could be revisited relative to the fabrication process (3D powder printing). For example, some of the small mesh apertures became so small that the loose powder fused to the model - these apertures should have a minimum limit that prevents this from happening. Also, some of the interior cavities were too small or too deep to allow the vacuum tool inside, which meant that we had to excavate the part with the weight of the powder still inside - as you can imagine this caused breaks along some of the thinner spanning members of the topology. This could be avoided by enlarging or shortening some of these cavities, or simply by splitting the topology prior to the print and assembling it afterward.
Jul 10, 2012
Brian Ringley
Ivan did you check this out?
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/skeletal-mesh
Jul 14, 2012
Ivan Kiryakov
Jul 15, 2012