e looking to morph between?
At the end of the day, nearly all such operations come down to moving a bunch of points, and rebuilding your geometry from them. So the logical steps are:
1. Breakdown source & target geometries into points.
2. Calculate vectors from source points to target points.
3. Step2 implies that there needs to be an equal number of source and target points, which is by far one the most important considerations to make. If your are dealing with Nurbs, you must rebuild your geometries in order to have the same number of points, and if its meshes, you need to add tessellation.
4. Once you have the vectors, incrementally move points long these vectors in X number of steps, and each time you move them, rebuild your geometry from them using the same logic/sequence that you used to break it down in step1.
I posted a small example for mesh blending here. See if that helps.
If you are dealing with a Nurbs sphere and Nurbs Box, then things aren't very straight forward. For starters, a sphere is a single surface, while a box is 6. Since you can't make a box with a single surface, you will have to make your sphere with 6, somewhat broken down in the manner as if a cube were radially projected onto it. And then you will have to morph each of the surfaces to go from the 'part-sphere' to a flat face of the box by moving around their CVs.…
mum wall thickness of >1.0mm but I'm not sure about aluminium sintering. We have an Objet 3d printer at work that jets plastic media and we try to keep above 1mm wall thickness on that. It will print much thinner but it gets very hard to remove the support material without damaging the part.
You could create a tag attached by a thin section that protrudes from a discreet position on the inside of a corner piece? This could easily be removed during assembly.
Chris: looks like another good project! I'm currently trying to design moulds for all my corner pieces since there are 6 different corner pieces on my geodesic dome, 3 of which are split in half for ease of assembly, making 9 moulds! 3D printing was a bit out of my budget!…
Added by martyn hogg at 1:07pm on January 14, 2015
flat) and then subdivide your surface using the divide domain component and feed that into a surface box. Your base geometry, base geometry bounding box and surface boxes will all drive the box morph.
From the looks of your geometry, it appears that it is designed to nest in a particular way that isn't strictly rectilinear, but is more staggered, so that the top corner of one element fits into the bottom corner of an adjacent element. You can achieve this using the box morph, but you have to get pretty creative with how you subdivide your surface:
I'm attaching a couple of files...first of all is your definition with the changes in it to make the above. But also I used some components that I made recently (will release them in a package with a bunch more hopefully soon) called tree sloth, which helps manage data trees and lists. I used a couple of those components, so I'm also attaching the gha for those. Just copy that file into your components folder (under file-> special folders) and restart rhino/gh. The new components are just layered into different parts of the "Sets" components.
To explain what I did: you basically you want to have adjacent sub-surfaces along your guide surface to overlap at the top and bottom thirds. There are any number of ways to extract these surfaces...I just pulled out strips in each column and culled every fourth element, but shifted by one in alternating columns. So in the first column I take strips 1,2 and 3 and skip 4, take 5, 6 and 7, etc. and in the second column I start at number 3, 4, 5 and skip 6, then take 7, 8, 9, etc. Then I collect each of these batches of three strips and take the bottom left corner and upper right corner UV domains to create the target surfaces for the morph.
Hope this helps you out...…
r visual programming tools in the games world. MS's Kodu, looks interesting. Kismet and Visual3d look even more interesting..... mainly because they are more 'interactive' or 'reactive', rather than DAG-based.
Seems like the evolution path for GH-similar apps is:
1. base 3d or CAD app based on C/C++ code.
2. Add scripting language interface
3. Add some kind of visual interface
4. Add graph sorting / propagation engine
5. Re-jig base 3d or CADD app to make managed/interpreted scripts run faster, multi-threaded.
6. Add dynamic typed language, DLR stuff
6. ....
6. Add constraints solver...?
7. Rebuild CAD display engine to be procedural at the GPU level?
Seems like there are available tools for converting scripts into some kind of flowchart. There are even visual debuggers. MS even has something called the 'Debugger Canvas'. Spreadsheet constraints.
Seems like the time is ripe for lots of new apps like GH.
…
ate a sphere at each of the points
4. Use SDiff to subtract the spheres from the Brep in step 1.
Varying the scale factor in Step 2 moves the spheres closer to or farther away from the solid Brep. You can also change the size of the spheres - or do both. For fancier results you can arrange the spheres in patterns by creating the Step 2 points in non-random ways. For even fancier results you can substitute some other closed Brep for the spheres - I've liked using 7-pointed non-overlapping star shapes.
As Peter and others have pointed out, SDiff can take a long time to process, so start with relatively few points/shapess to subtract. …
Added by Birk Binnard at 10:05am on December 8, 2016
dy, that's perhaps why there there is such a discrepancy of lines in the ears as opposed to the body.Alternative proposal: 1. Start with a 3d populate bounding box with lines between two points, This bounding box must encase the Target geometry. ie the Bunny.2. Input the Bunny Mesh3. Trim the 3d populated bounding box with lines. up to the boundary of the Bunny Mesh. What remains are the lines contained within the Bunny Mesh.4. Now let the Cocoon script do its thing.Does this approach make sense? But more importantly is it doable in GH? (I have a Bounding Box)…
nd me to kill him but give him my regards anyway) is still around in BirdAir Italy ... talk with him.
3. Hope that you understand that designing the "details" means some decent MCAD app + FEA + this + that. "Fusing" this with some abstract graphic editor like GH ... is ... er ... impossible (in real-life, you know, he he ). Generative Components on the other hand may qualify but requires a lot of time in order to fully master it (approx 2-4 years).
4. FormFinder ... well ... that's utterly Academic but on the other hand ... (good luck).
http://www.formfinder.at/main/software/team/
5. http://tecno.upc.edu/cotens/software.htm
6. This is the second best (after the BirdAir internal stuff) but costs an arm and a leg
http://www.ndnsoftware.com/
7. This is a !%$!%$ in the !%$%!$:
http://www.sofistik.com/no_cache/loesungen/fem/leichte-tragwerke/
My realistic (low cost) advise:
use K1/2 (especially if you are after "parametric" exploitation(s)) ... and then diversify tasks: stuff for the structural department, stuff for whom claims that he can(?) design the "details" ... whilst be in a constant contact with the membrane provider (and in fact: the contractor for doing the real thing as well)
…
rves that "intersect" a plane placed on Z=6 above the first circle. I did this to have a collection of points from which to choose 3 and make a 3pt-circle.
[this second circle "fits" the catenary at a certain height, that's what I wanted to do]
Maybe it's obtuse but anyway that's the way I managed it.. I then used the "intersection" of the top circle with the original catenary curve to "split" the catenary into 2 parts, I then "Rail Revolution" the first part of it around the axis of the original circle, using the circle as a "rail", and I get a Brep surface.
It is a "open brep" surface, so now i'm having the problem of managing it if I want to subdivide it with Isotrim or other commands to control the number of subdivisions.
Is there a better way to go about this?
I am attaching the file.
About the image, I checked my code about 10 times to understand why it has those "lines" every 1 meter in the Z, and they already appear in the "rail revolution" component when it is visible, but in the "brep components" I can see the individual points along the rail curve.
I think this is what might be causing the brep to surface problem, but for the life of me I can't understand why the rail is not smooth and is "divided" into the 7 points instead of just one smooth revolution...
Thanks! :)
…
an use grasshoppers data recorder component to record all kinds of data while you either
1) run your search
2) reinstate single solutions via the context menu in octopus
3) recompute an entire generation or just its pareto front via the menu 'meshes'
the export tab does not work at the moment. i ll put it back to function in a week earliest.
theres also a little manual describing these main functions ..!
best
r…
georges/gismo/blob/master/examples/green_view_index.gh
2) Shapefiles (.shp) files reader:Shapefiles to test the new "read SHP" component:https://qgis.org/downloads/data/qgis_sample_data.zip (folder '\qgis_sample_data\shapefiles')
3) Two bug fixes- "OSM 3D Roads" component now runs on Rhino 7 as well.- "Bathymetry 1' color palette allowed to be used.
Gismo wishes you happy holidays and Happy New 2021!…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 1:12pm on December 24, 2020