we're actually using PET sheets for our flexures. We try to design so that the flexures don't go through more than +/- 30 degrees of deflection. If the angular deflection is kept small, the lifetime can definitely be on the order of 1000000 cycles.
As for the design process (item 2), ideally the designer would be able to use a simple 3D CAD tool to design a model of a robot, and the geometry would be represented by dimensioning the individual parts in the model. Maybe there should be some parametric primitive kinematic building blocks like four bar linkages, box frames, etc. that a user could build up a robot from. But, the key functionality the tool needs to provide is for the designer to be able to visualize how the robot will move when it's fabricated. This could mean observing (or plotting) the motion of a leg, a wing, or a series of body segments. Ideally, then, the tool would generate an unfolding of the design. How this would work is still very vague - maybe the user would assist in the unfolding, maybe there would be an optimization routine that computes optimal unfoldings based on criteria like minimal waste, or fewest pieces (I would *not* constrain the problem to construction from a single monolithic piece as in origami). The biggest problem we have right now, is that our design process is totally divorced from fabrication. Even if we went through the trouble of extruding individual thin plates in Solidworks and creating an assembly for visualizing the kinematics of a mechanism, that particular representation doesn't transfer easily to the fabrication process because it's essentially monolithic.
Item 3: The 2D drawing is simple a drawing done manually in Solidworks. There are different layers for flexure cuts, outline cuts, and potentially any cuts to be made in the plastic flexure layer. Depending on the robot, there may be many separate pieces for different parts and linkages in a single robot. For example, the drawing for a robot containing a fourbar linkage may have the linkage laid out as a physically separate piece consisting of five rigid links connected by four flexure hinges. During assembly, the designer would then fold up that linkage and insert it into the robot wherever it's supposed to go. If you're curious you can see some sample 2D drawings for older designs here: http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ronf/Prototype/ under the "Example Structures" heading.
I noticed Kangaroo seems to be a popular choice for physical simulations. I don't really even need to include forces like bending resistance - I'm happy to allow the design tool to approximate flexures as pin joint-type hinges. Once the design is unfolded, the details of how to cut the flexures could be worked out in a post-processing step. I wouldn't expect the tool to be able to realistically simulate the bending of the hinges.
I'm going to have to dig a lot deeper into understanding Grasshopper and Kangaroo. I only just got started with Grasshopper today by following the folding plate tutorial on wa11ace.com.au today. …
to run at full screen. I've gone as far as using an iPad to use as the second monitor via AirDisplay (which actually works really well) but have never been satisfied with any setup that required you to look back and forth as if at a tennis match all day long.
Not long after first using Grasshopper 3+ years ago I've had the desire for a "Live Viewport" component that would allow a live image of the 3d geometry being generated directly in the canvas. Every once in a while I search the forums with the hope of finding a solution, but always come up empty handed. Someday this might exist although for now I have found what might be the next best thing to a native "Live Viewport" component and its enabled with a small app named Sticky Previews. This app uses the task bar preview feature within Windows 7's aero interface to create custom, floating preview windows from any open window currently running. I've only just discovered the app, but it seems to do the trick and has been stable and problem free so far. -- I will post an update if I find out that I might have spoken too soon. The install allows for a 30 day trial and is $15 bucks to purchase. I just found the app and don't know anything about this group that created the app. If you happen to know of them, Id be curious to find out more.
divided windows, cramped and slow;
unified window with floating rhino model preview;
link to the apps webpage;
http://www.ntwind.com/software/sticky-previews.html
Also works with other apps;
and the about me page screen shot;
…
Added by Tyler Selby at 11:25pm on November 26, 2012
serveral questions:the first thing is in c++ i have to implement more methods than in my c# test project.
they are:
int MyGhComponent::MasterParameterIndex::get(){ return 0;}void MyGhComponent::MasterParameterIndex::set(int index){ }bool MyGhComponent::IsValidMasterParameterIndex::get(){ return 1;}
i found no hint for the implementation of that interfaces. could someone tell me that is correct ?OK, it works, but is it well writen ? What is the MasterParameterIndex?
the second "bigger" problem is, i want to have an output of an pointlist.X y Z 1.2 1.3 1.12.1 5.2 9.2...
my first approch was to use a
void MyGhComponent::RegisterOutputParams(GH_Component::GH_OutputParamManager^ pManager){pManager->Register_PointParam("Coordinate", "XYZ", "Node-Coordinate");}
and
void MyGhComponent::SolveInstance(IGH_DataAccess^ DA){Collections::Generic::List<GH_IO::Types::GH_Point3D>^ pnt = gcnew Collections::Generic::List<GH_IO::Types::GH_Point3D>(); for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { GH_IO::Types::GH_Point3D^ point = gcnew GH_IO::Types::GH_Point3D(i, i, i); pnt->Add(i); } DA->SetDataList(3, pnt);}
but this exampel doesn't work...i wirte a small workaround and use the following
pManager->Register_DoubleParam("X-Koordinate", "X", "X"); pManager->Register_DoubleParam("Y-Koordinate", "Y", "Y"); pManager->Register_DoubleParam("Z-Koordinate", "Z", "Z"); Collections::Generic::List<double>^ pntx= gcnew Collections::Generic::List<double>(); Collections::Generic::List<double>^ pnty= gcnew Collections::Generic::List<double>(); Collections::Generic::List<double>^ pntz= gcnew Collections::Generic::List<double>(); ... add .. ect.
this workaround do the job, but i want a better soulution. and i know somewhere out there sould be a better solution. i want to use 3D Points directly in GH without list conversation.
so somebody a familiar with c++ / cli ? and could give me some tipps or a soulution ?
the first thing is: what is the right RegisterOutputParams ?
and witch data type is the right ? Point3d doesn't work. so i try GH_IO::Types::GH_Point3D and Rhino::Geometry::Point3d ...
br Friedrich…
rking with. I am architecture student as well so please bear with me :).
I am currently working on a high rise building. All elements (that is core, slabs and colums) will be analyzed as made of reinforced concrete. I do not want to optimize reinforcement distribution, I will create a material that would be close to reinforced concretes properties.
I think i understand how to create and assemble models made of beams (COLUMNS in my model) in Karamba, but I get totally lost when it comes to combining them with shells (CORE, SLABS in my model).
I would like to optimize use of material (volume or mass) with:
A) slab deflection limited to 3cm (GRAVITY + LIFE LOAD)
B) top of the building cannot "lean out" (horizontal defletction from WIND LOAD) more than 1/500 of its height
I post my questions below:
1) I would like to apply wind load on bigger exterior walls of the building. What would the best method bo to do that? I thought about applying load on the level of slabs as uniform line load (marked blue in model). Uniform line load needs to be supplied with beam ID. How can i simulate that? would i have to add beams on slabs edges for that to work correctly? If yes - how would i connect them with slab, so that all elements are transfering the loads cooperatively. Also in that case - how to convert wind pressure (kN/m^2 to kN/m)
2) I know that living load I want to apply is 4kn/m2. How to apply such load to mesh so that results are realiable? it is hard to turn it to point load, as mesh faces (and points where loads are applied) would have to be 1x1m if I understand correctly.
3) How would you place supports under core part?
4)I do not want to vary Slabs/Cores section - I would like to find the minimal value so that mentioned conditions are met. For example - 25cm slabs, 40x40 columns, 50cm core walls. I wouldn't like slab and core to have different heights in different places. Is it possible to use "Optimize Cross Section" Component or should i use Galapagos for that?
Sorry for such long post,
Thank you for your time and help…
Added by Wujo to Karamba3D at 1:11pm on September 27, 2017
URBS cup surface, and boy oh boy did it ever work more uniformly than using 3D orb cutters on a 3D cup. Different sized spheres return the *same* hex grid only less and less raised up as the spheres get very large.
My first question is whether these are different in character or just in Z scaling, so if I rescale them all to the same Z thickness, after extracting only the relief structure via Boolean union and splitting...and they are only *slightly* different in character, which means mere Z re-scaling of a single moderate ball size relief is an appropriate cheat to avoid slow Boolean union re-making each relief Z scale with different sized balls.
The one on the right is a very shallow relief scaled up to the same Z thickness as the pure sphere one on the left. And really, we will be mostly scaling *down* from a thicker master surface so that will attenuate any weirdness in the curvature. Indeed, I see no difference, so it makes sense to only archive the thickest one so we can control the full range of thicknesses, all the way to nearly flat bulbs. Here is the thickest one, just before the balls lose holes between them, scaled down compared to a shallow one made with huge balls to start with:
Now we just use Rhino Flow Along Surface or the Grasshopper Jackalope plug-in Sporf to morph this flat system onto our lathe form.
With Rhino history for the Flow Along Surface step I can rescale the original in Z and wait twenty seconds to see the update:
There are sad edge artifacts that will require some strategy to retain or later delete a whole row:
Maybe add more geometry to later delete or make a solid to hold stuff together?
So vastly decreasing the cell count and changing grid direction to match your cup:
The edges came out fine on this one, happily. The isocurve count has been increased by the Flow Along Surface command:
It can't be filleted yet since the joint where the cup NURBS surface has a joint now leaves feathery edges, so I went back and duplicated the border of the flat array, offset and lofted to make a protecting surface:
But that gave crazy artifacts:
I'm just going to use symmetry to fill in the joint with good faces that are not having to be joined as two halves. I had to turn my Rhino units tolerance down from a silly 0.0001 to 0.01 units to get a good re-join, but it still won't fillet without leaving holes.
SO LET'S FILLET THE FLAT THING. Same problem but a bit faster, and actually repairable manually. Rhino 5 is buggy as hell with core commands, damn it. This is not world class behavior.
Let's try it in Rhino 6 WIP, our great hope of the future: nope, the same. I had to simply manually copy the missing pieces from where it did work, which at least is easy to do in flatland. Now I get a cup:
This can *all* be done quickly in Rhino without Grasshopper, and Rhino affords you fast cage editing of the original flat array that Grasshopper cannot yet do. You just need to use Analyze Direction to be able to swap UV directions of the source or target and flip the source surface to achieve concave vs. convex patterns.
Grasshopper doesn't even have a fillet (multiple) edges component so there's not a lot of advantage to having some super slow parametric system via Grasshopper. It's not like you'll be able to see the changes fast enough to tweak a design.…
project below- should I be learning Grasshopper & Rhino or just Rhino first?
I'm trying to panel modules with low tolerances- I've prototyped regular shapes like geodesics and am now looking to experiment with irregular shapes with lots of different panel shapes.
I understand some things are best done through Grasshopper when using Paneling Tools- I'm trying to figure out if I can do what I want to achive with PT alone or should do it through Grasshopper (or some other route).
I’m on the MAC WIP - The module was built in Sketchup - all the components seem to be in order as blocks though am having problems running the ptpanel3dcustom command - thinking maybe a bug in the WIP or something wrong with my input or that I imported the sketchup file the wrong way. (I dropped it in the window) - If the 3D command is run it doesn’t do anything - if 2D (ptpanelgridcustom) it crashes.
The tileing pattern - the green rectangle is a refrence. each tile contains 4 blocks with 3 more nested in each.
How the module tiles.
The other thing I'm trying to do is specify that most of the lines in the panels don’t bend/curve when they are paneled (or something like Cage Edited). For my purposes the length & angles can change while the lines must remain straight.
These images show a test tile to be panneled on a ellipsoid. When the tile is mapped to the grid the lines curve, this is an extreme example but notice allot of tiles far from the hemespheres are also bent slightly.
These two questions have me stumped the most for now. What should I look into get a better handle on these problem areas? Maybe I should try recreating the work on a windows machine? or perhaps I should get started with Grasshopper?
Thanks for reading.
Lu…
bsp;
-Vehicle elements (3D objects and a component for custom vehicles; models from Google Warehouse)
-Traffic Velocity Graphs, drawn on every trajectory curve (allow custom graphs drawn)
-Traffic regulation elements (such as Traffic Lights and Stop Signals) and traffic density
-Particle Systems on trajectory curves, just to manage the traffic regulations and avoid collisions based on security distances
-Traffic Vehicle Animation Modes (Dots, Bounding Boxes or complex Meshes with attributes for final rendering (Giulio Piacentino´s Render Animation)
-Vehicle Lights and Vehicle Sights, to make visual studies
Team:
-Sergio del Castillo Tello (Doctor No, lead programmer)
-Everyone that wants to be involved, support.. these tools
The development of Roadrunner is planned to take part within a Research Group Program at ETSAM (University of Architecture in Madrid); This forum group is created just to test the interest of the community, while we keep on developing (it is still being tested), probably we will share the whole thing in the future. Cheers!
Traffic Cluster Scheme
Traffic Elements
Traffic Urban Systems
Vehicle Elements
Roadrunner - overview
Roadrunner 0 Basics
Roadrunner 1 Modes
Roadrunner 2 Elements
Roadrunner 3 Urban Systems…
Introduction to Grasshopper Videos by David Rutten.
Wondering how to get started with Grasshopper? Look no further. Spend an some time with the creator of Grasshopper, David Rutten, to learn the
h tubes are redundant so surfaces overlap instead of interpenetrate, so it is not a good system.
Cocoon is the best answer these days unless you can get Exowire/Exoskelton to work. If you want more control over shape, feed your uncapped tubes into Cocoon as meta-surfaces and delete any and all of the inner meshes to just keep the outer single closed one, but this is just duplicate-culled lines used as meta-lines:
Turn down the CS input to 0.005 for this result, from 0.02 used for faster preview. In fact bake the lines and only test Cocoon on a few of them in order to get the result you want before doing the whole thing.
Whole thing at 0.005 cell size takes 5 minutes for Cocoon and 2 minutes for refinement to a smooth and even mesh.
Actually, seems like 0.005 is way too fine, giving a 600MB STL file.
So, 0.01 cell size at less than a minute total:
159MB STL which is still a bit too big for places like Shapeways. Wow. OK then 0.02 cell size, but I have to increase diameter or my two smoothing steps in refine collapse things too much, an in fact I set it to no smoothing, getting more volume and a reasonable 46MB STL file:
Alas, now it's more frail and overly organic rather than mechanical. Increasing diameter just merges it into perforated plates too much. File size is simply an issue with this complexity level, so different 3D printing services will have different file size limits.
Exowire/Exoskeleton would work but your original mesh hasn't been MeshMachine remeshed to be regular, so short segments ruin it. Here is just a corner:
I think that's why more wires fails, at least. Pretty temperamental component.
Switching to MeshMachine is needed, I guess, instead of Cocoon refine, to remesh away so many small triangles along the boring tubes. Crucial for good remeshing was to set Flip to 0 or I failed to get a rough enough mesh.
It's an adaptive mesh so I can retain good detail while roughing out the tubes.
MeshMachine is terribly slow for this whole thing, like 6 minutes, and blows up for this overly rough setting, 20 steps, so less rough, ugh, I'm out of time. I think free Autocad Meshmixer is the way to make a better smaller mesh, after a refined output from Cocoon. MeshMachine is just too slow to tweak and when it blows up, creating massive triangles jutting out, it hangs too when you change settings.
Starting with a Cocoon refined mesh certainly helped Meshmixer. Using triangle budget lets me have full control. Here is 150K triangles instead of 200K:
STL file size down to 40MB. I think Shapeways is 70 or 100MB limit? So it can be even finer. Here is the Cocoon output versus the Meshmixer reduction:
To use Meshmixer, turn on View > Show Wireframe, Command-S to select all and use Edit > Reduce from the palette that appears.
Cocoon can end up making a few inner meshes where things get weird in your uneven original mesh with small holes so fish out the main mesh by adding a List Item node.
The best strategy for Cocoon is indeed to make an overly fine STL so you avoid any need to tweak forever in Grasshopper, but then you can achieve a smaller mesh file size while preserving shape instead of things turning all smearly organic in Grasshopper.…
e a fundamental failure on my part. On the other hand, Grasshopper isn't supposed to be on a par with most other 3D programs. It is emphatically not meant for manual/direct modelling. If you would normally tackle a problem by drawing geometry by hand, Grasshopper is not (and should never be advertised as) a good alternative.
I get that. That’s why that 3D shape I’m trying to apply the voronoi to was done in NX. I do wonder where the GUI metaphor GH uses comes from. It reminds me of LabVIEW.
"What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design."
Grasshopper ships with about 1000 components (rounded to the nearest power of ten). I'm adding more all the time, either because new functionality has been exposed in the Rhino SDK or because a certain component makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Adding pre-canned components that do the same as '8 or 10 components strung together' for the heck of it will balloon the total number of components everyone has to deal with. If you find yourself using the same 8 to 10 components together all the time, then please mention it on this forum. A lot of the currently existing components have been added because someone asked for it.
It’s not the primary components that catalyzed this thought but rather the secondary components. I was toying with a component today (twist from jackalope) that made use of three toggle components. The things they controlled are checkboxes in other apps.
Take a look at this jpg. Ignore differences; I did 'em quickly. GH required 19 components to do what SW did with 4 commands. Note the difference in screen real estate.
As an aside, I really hate SolidWorks (SW). But going forward, I’ll use it as an example because it’s what most people are familiar with.
"[...] has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others."
Again, GH was not designed to be an alternative to these sort of modellers. I don't like referring to GH as 'parameteric' as that term has been co-opted by relational modellers. I prefer to use 'algorithmic' instead. The idea behind parameteric seems to be that one models by hand, but every click exists within a context, and when the context changes the software figures out where to move the click to. The idea behind algorithmic is that you don't model by hand.
I agree, and disagree. I believe parametric applies equally to GH AND SW, NX, and so forth, while algorithmic is unique to GH (and GC and Dynamo I think). Thus I understand why you prefer the term. I too tend to not like referring to GH as a parametric modeler for the same reason.
But I think it oversimplifies it to say parametric modelers move the clicks. SW tracks clicks the same way GH does; GH holds that information in geometry components while SW holds it in a feature in the feature tree. In both GH and SW edits to the base geometry will drive a recalculation, but more commonly, it’s an edit to input data, beit equations or just plain numbers, that drive a recalculation.
I understand the difference in these programs. What brought me to GH is that it can create a visual dialog that standard modelers can’t. But as I've grown more comfortable with it I’ve come to realize that the GUI of GH and the GUI of other parametric modelers, while looking completely different, are surprisingly interchangeable. Do not misconstrue that I’m suggesting that GH should replace it’s GUI with SW’s. I’m not. I refrain from suggesting anything specific. I only suggest that you allow yourself to think radically.
This is not to say there is no value in the parametric approach. Obviously it is a winning strategy and many people love to use it. We have considered adding some features to GH that would make manual modelling less of a chore and we would still very much like to do so. However this is such a large chunk of work that we have to be very careful about investing the time. Before I start down this road I want to make sure that the choice I'm making is not 'lame-ass algorithmic modeller with some lame-ass parametrics tacked on' vs. 'kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on'.
Given a choice, I'd pick kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on.
2. Visual Programming.
I'm not exactly sure I understand your grievance here, but I suspect I agree. The visual part is front and centre at the moment and it should remain there. However we need to improve upon it and at the same time give programmers more tools to achieve what they want.
I'll admit, this is a bit tough to explain. As I've re-read my own comment, I think it was partly a precursor to the context sensitivity point and touched upon other stated points.
This now touches upon my own ignorance about GH’s target market. Are you moving toward a highly specialized tool for programmers and/or mathematicians, or is the intent to create a tool that most designers can master? If it’s the former, rock on. You’re doing great. If it’s the latter, I’m one of the more technically sophisticated designers I know and I’m lost most of the time when using GH.
GH allows the same freedom as a command line editor. You can do whatever you like, and it’ll work or not. And you won’t know why it works or doesn't until you start becoming a bit of an expert and can actually decipher the gibberish in a panel component. I often feel GH has the ease of use of DOS with a badass video card in front.
Please indulge my bit of storytelling. Early 3D modelers, CATIA, Unigraphics, and Pro-Engineer, were unbelievably difficult to use. Yet no one ever complained. The pain of entry was immense. But once you made it past the pain threshold, the salary you could command was very well worth it. And the fewer the people who knew how to use it, the more money you could demand. So in a sense, their lack of usability was a desirable feature among those who’d figured it out.
Then SolidWorks came along. It could only do a fraction of what the others did, but it was a fraction of the cost, it did most of what you needed, and anyone could figure it out. There was even a manual on how to use it. (Craziness!) Within a few short years, the big three all had to change their names (V5, NX, and Wildfire (now Creo)) and change the way they do things. All are now significantly easier to use.
I can tell that the amount of development time that’s gone into GH is immense and I believe the functionality is genius. I also believe it’s ease of use could be greatly improved.
Having re-read my original comments, I think it sounded a bit snotty. For that I apologize.
3. Context sensitivity.
"There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them."
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Whether or not a conversion between two data types makes sense is often dependent on the actual values. If you plug a list of curves into a Line component, none of them may be convertible. Should I therefore not allow this connection to be made? What if there is a single curve that could be converted to a line? What if you want to make the connection now, but only later plan to add some convertible curves to the data? What you made the connection back when it was valid, but now it's no longer valid, wouldn't it be weird if there was a connection you couldn't make again?
I've started work on GH2 and one of the first things I'm writing now is the new data-conversion logic. The goal [...] is to not just try and convert type A into type B, but include information about what sort of conversion was needed (straightforward, exotic, far-fetched. etc.) and information regarding why that type was assigned.
You are right that under some conditions, we can be sure that a conversion will always fail. For example connecting a Boolean output with a Curve input. But even there my preferred solution is to tell people why that doesn't make sense rather than not allowing it in the first place.
You bring up both interesting points and limits to my understanding of coding. I’ve reached the point in my learning of GH where I’m just getting into figuring out the sets tab (and so far I’m not doing too well). I often find myself wondering “Is all of this manual conditioning of the data really necessary? Doesn’t most software perform this kind of stuff invisibly?” I’d love to be right and see it go away, but I could easily be wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
5. Components.
"Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings."
I was thinking of just zooming in on a component would eventually provide easier ways to access settings and data.
I kinda like this. It’s a continuation of what you’re currently doing with things like the panel component.
"Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?"
It's almost impossible for me to know whether these things are 'unlikely' in any given situation. There are probably some cases where a suggestion along the lines of "Hey, this component is about to run 40,524 times. It seems like it would make sense to Graft the 'P' input." would be useful.
6. Integration.
"Why isn't it just live geometry?"
This is an unfortunate side-effect of the way the Rhino SDK was designed. Pumping all my geometry through the Rhino document would severely impact performance and memory usage. It also complicates the matter to an almost impossible degree as any command and plugin running in Rhino now has access to 'my' geometry.
"Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset."
That's the plan moving forward. A lot of algorithms in Rhino (Make2D, FilletEdge, Shelling, BlendSrf, the list goes on) are not available as part of the public SDK. The Rhino development team is going to try and rectify this for Rhino6 and beyond. As soon as these functions become available I'll start adding them to GH (provided they make sense of course).
On the whole I agree that integration needs a lot of work, and it's work that has to happen on both sides of the isle.
You work for McNeel yet you seem to speak of them as a separate entity. Is this to say that there are technical reasons GH can only access things through the Rhino SDK? I’d think you would have complete access to all Rhino API’s. I hope it’s not a fiefdom issue, but it happens.
7. Documentation.
Absolutely. Development for GH1 has slowed because I'm now working on GH2. We decided that GH1 is 'feature complete', basically to avoid feature creep. GH2 is a ground-up rewrite so it will take a long time until something is ready for testing. During this time, minor additions and of course bug fixes will be available for GH1, but on a much lower frequency.
Documentation is woefully inadequate at present. The primer is being updated (and the new version looks great), but for GH2 we're planning a completely new help system. People have been hired to provide the content. With a bit of luck and a lot of work this will be one of the main selling points of GH2.
It begs the question that I have to ask. When is GH1.0 scheduled to launch? And if you need another person to proofread the current draft of new primer.
patrick@girgen.com
I can’t believe wikipedia has an entry for feature creep. And I can’t believe you included it. It made me giggle. Thanks.
8. 2D-ness.
"I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen?"
I don't fully disagree. A lot of geometry is either flat or happens inside surfaces. The reason there's no shelling (I'm assuming that's what you meant, there are two Offset Surface components in GH) is because (a) it's a very new feature in Rhino and doesn't work too well yet and (b) as a result of that isn't available to plugins.
I believe it’s been helpful for me to have figured this out. I recently completed a GH course at a local Community College and have done a bunch of online tutorials. The first real project I decided to tackle has turned out to be one of the more difficult things to try. It’s the source of the questions I posted. (Thanks for pointing out that they were posted in the wrong spot. I re-posted to the discussions board.)
I just can't seem to figure out how to turn the voronoi into legitimate geometry. I've seen this exact question posted a few times, but it’s never been successfully answered. What I'm showing here is far more angular than I’m hoping for. The mesh is too fine for weaverbird to have much of an effect. And I haven't cracked re-meshing. Btw, in product design, meshes are to be avoided like the plague. Embracing them remains difficult.
As for offsetsurf, in Rhino, if you do an offsetsurf to a solid body, it executes it on all sides creating another neatly trimmed body thats either larger or smaller than the original. This is how every other app I know of works. GH’s offsetsurf creates a bunch of unjoined faces spaced away from the original brep. A common technique for 3D voronois (Yes, I hit the voronoi overuse easter egg) is to find the center of each cell and scale them by this center. If you think about it, this creates a different distance from the face of the scaled cell to the face of the original cell for every face. As I've mentioned, this project is giving me serious headaches.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback, I really do, but I want to be honest and open about my own plans and where they might conflict with your wishes. Grasshopper is being used far beyond the boundaries of what we expected and it's clear that there are major shortcomings that must be addressed before too long. We didn't get it right with the first version, I don't expect we'll get it completely right with the second version but if we can improve upon the -say- five biggest drawbacks (performance, documentation, organisation, plugin management and no mac version) I'll be a happy puppy.
--
David Rutten
Thank you for taking the time to reply David. Often we feel that posting such things is send it into the empty ether. I’m very glad that this was not the case.
And thank you for all of the work you've put into GH. If you found any of my input overly harsh or ill-mannered, I apologise. It was not my intent. I'm generally not the ranting sort. If I hadn't intended to provide possibly useful input, I wouldn't have written.
Cheers
Patrick Girgen
Ps. Any pointers on how to get a bit further on the above project would be greatly appreciated.
…