on for curves, if you make an algorithm that dynamically defines the possition of the controlpoints for NURBS curves as a function of the parameteres in F(t, a1,...,b1,...,c1,...)= x(t, a1, a2...)+y(t, b1, b2...)+ z(t, c1, c2...) or F(x, a, b ,c...)?
…
f the mesh was self-intersecting everywhere. So instead I used Millipede (isosurface) to get the same undulations, but ignore the complex 'folds', you can see the difference in cross section thickness. I then tessellated it with the inverse pattern of the outer surface.
To make it a single 3d printable mesh, i just deleted a single face on inner and outer skin, then lofted the naked edges. (creating a tiny hole through the model). Therefore creating a single mesh that folds in on itself, not sure if there is a better way of defining the space between two meshes as the solid area...
Full GH (Kangaroo - Meshmachine - Weaverbird - Millipede)
Special thanks to Laurent Delrieu for his interesting offset mesh method that i based my approach on.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/offset-mesh-problems-with-3d-mesh-with-weaverbird…
Added by Nick Tyrer at 5:25am on December 10, 2015
ng long in the x axis and three in the y and they don't all intersect each other... I wrote a script to Boolean difference them but its not working like i want it to . I included a rhino result that id like to achieve in the file. THX -ethan
heres the script:
import rhinoscriptsyntax as rs
b1 = []for i in range(b1L): b1.append (x)print b1bb= len(b1)print bbb2 = []for j in range(b2L): b2.append (y)print b2bc = len(b2)print bc
def bool ():....for i in range (bb):........for j in range(bc):............a = rs.BooleanDifference( b1,b2, False).....return (a) a = bool ()…
g these times itself). If it works on selection alone, it would probably implement faster.
Theoretically, does this mean the total solving time of the definition is the 'chain of components' that takes the longest time? In the picture above, it would be the chain consisting 'point-curve-divideDistance'?
Because that still adds up only to 97%, I am assuming the Point and Slider component start solving in parallel, and the two Divide components also start solving in parallel?…
this target list:
(a1, b1, c1, d1)
(a2, b2, c2, d2)
(a3, b3, c3, d3)
....
What I want to do is injecting one more value (arbitrary angle in my case) to each point before I cull many of them - so that each point brings its angle data along.
Any hep would be greatly appreciated. TIA
…