e mesh. Some other software's may give the this option but i don't think its the default workflow.
Here's Just some Simple Breps/ Meshes explain it not about how complex your model is
Rhino Breps exported as STL
Errors in STL highlighted Magics
Rhino Meshes Exported As Stk
Errors in STL highlighted Magics
Rhino Single Closed Brep Exported as STL
Error Free Stl in Magics
If its not possible to make a SINGLE Closed Mesh or Closed Brep in Rhino to export these errors can be solved in software like Magics either though repair or Shrink wrapping the mesh parts. Note though Magics is not a cheap software .. a few £1000 i think.
I don't have a 3d Builder here so can't test it in that software
Hope this clears things up a little.
Matt…
eps are represented by multiple surfaces so the discussed techniques are not fully workable.
the attached files include my test gh and a solid file to input. I have been able to map a suitable voronoi latticework onto the brep surface - but then I'm stuck. I cannot offset the curves on the brep and create a useable strut surface that way. I cannot intersect swept pipes with the brep surface to create surface patches that could then be joined.
I need some elegant ideas; I seem to be going down a rabbit hole at the moment where I am doing ever more complex workarounds for the grasshopper capabilities. (A case in point; the rail sweep is not working for me for closed 3D polylines, so I am having to cut them up and sweep and cap the segments. Ugh).
Example input brep
Curves on brep - but no simple offset / trim mechanism
Potential rail defining strut trim - but no way to do so...
Brep / rail intersect - but no way to turn this into a surface...
Programme
Voronoi%20strut%20on%20brep%20test.3dm
Voronoi%20struts%20-%20volume%202.gh
…
. You could draw a sine wave around the circumference of the cylinder and use this as a tool path for a simple rotary milling operation. So, the cylinder is rotated through 360 degrees on a 4th axis CNC machine and the cutting tool would plunge to depth of cut on the z-axis and then simply be moved in one other axis to create the cam surface.
Simple :)
BUT... If you create this cam surface by sweeping a perpendicular line along the sine wave path that is around a cylinder it is not the same surface that would be created in the milling process described above. Using lofts does not help either.
When we run this through Solid Works (sorry for blaspheming) and CAM Works (sorry again) it shows that if the tool is kept tangent to the outside edge of the cam surface it would clash with the surface and needs to be moved on another axis to be machined. We end up having to freeform surfaces like this when all we really want to do is a simple rotary milling operation.
I've created a Grasshopper file to try and visualise what is happening and my 1st question (plea for help) is this:
How can I move the cylinder (representing the cutting tool) in one axis only to follow the curve along the outside edge of the cylindrical cam?
I can move it in the Y direction of the perp-frame I've created by the tool radius but this is not quite in the right direction and does not constrain the cutting tool to one axis of movement only.
I am pretty sure that if I managed to get my cutting tool moving tangent to the outer edge of the cam surface and in only one axis it would not be tangent on the inside edge (shown by the intersection of the tool cylinder and the inside curve).
So to my Second question:
How could I draw a cylindrical cam surface that could be machined using just a rotary axis and one linear axis?
I could just get the CNC to follow the sine wave curve around the cylinder but it is helpful to actually create the 3d surface so we can compare theoretical to actual on the CMM machine after machining.
I really hope someone has followed this and can help because our CAM Works Support have been a bit useless on this one and I'd love to use Rhino / GH to solve it!…
Added by martyn hogg at 3:31am on September 9, 2013
ystem to support it from the back.
ELEVATIONPLAN
What I need to do is create a mesh network that is composed of straight segmented pieces. To start, I contoured the surface at 500mm segments in the X and Y axis, getting a mesh grid [below]
Then, I wrote a simple grasshopper script to segment the contour lines, but when I run it, the segments in the X direction and the Y direction do not intersect like I need them to.
I understand why this happened and I understand what I need to do (in concept) but I can't seem to figure out how to implement it.
I'm pretty sure that I need to take the original contours and find the intersecting points and include it in my set of points from DivLength command. My problem is that in the list, the numbers get all jostled up and when I Pline the list of points, it goes a bit crazy. My questions are:
1. Is this the best method of going about this process of creating the segmented mesh?
2. How do I reassemble the list of the two point groups I added?
Thanks in advance!
Best,
Issac
…
need custom scripting. I've always been a self taught sort of person. When I was younger I did simple html. Just recently I taught myself very basic python scripting. My guess would be probably what a first term student would learn. Just enough to copy and paste code for a visualization program my client used.
I had some basic question for you computer science majors. First and foremost I would like to say I am always humbled by the skill set and high level understanding of math you guys posses. I would like to thank anyone who takes the time to read and respond to my post.
What is the best language for nurb based design?
I rarely use meshes. The main problems I have, are usually about trimming, surface transition, curvature and stitching for 3d printing and manufacturing.
How long would it take me to understand and write my own code?
I have no delusions on how hard it is to get to that level. I do not think it's easy, I do not think it will take me a couple months to wrap my head around. I know if I were to embark in this journey, it would take me a very very long time. I am in no hurry.
Is it even worth it?
I have my own company. I work around 70 hours a week. I know class A Nurb modeling, polygon based modeling, photorealistic cpu and gpu based rendering, it's coming to the point where I feel I might be spreading myself too thin.
Whats the usual rate for a programmer who knows what he is doing?
I know theirs always cheaper people who might get my problem solved, but I believe that talent is expensive because it is worth every penny in the long run. I do contracting work too. I always have to tell my clients how the previous contractor did such a horrible job, I would have to start from scratch.
Where do I start?
I don't like classes. I like books, tutorials and google. Regardless if it makes financial sense for me to start, I believe in education for the sake of self improvement. I also think computer science forces your brain to understand complex concepts and that, in turn, makes you a smarter person.
Thanks again and I hope you guys have a good day.
…
eded to calculate many Waterplane Areas and the GH Area component was bogging things down. I looked to Basic Ship Theory and the use of Simpson’s Rule which in this case mirrors an intersection between a Half Hull and a waterline and then divides up the enclosed waterplane into an even number of equally spaced segments to calculate the area. The result of which is 99.997% of the Rhino and GH area and about a thousand times quicker (more actually). But when checking my method I lofted the simple section curves and fed this into an Area component and had a result a hundred times quicker than the original. This got me thinking that it was the complexity of the Surface that was a problem so I rebuilt the curve with the same number of points as used in the Simpson’s Rule calculation… This was even worse now taking 4 minutes as opposed to 2.8. Wondering why, I realised that the original surface and my Simpson’s surface where created 90º to each other. One lofted from one side of the vessel to the other whereas the quicker method lofted along the length. So I swapped the UV of the original and low and behold 4.3s….
The methods, results and images of the different area calculations are shown below with Simpson’s Rule at the top followed down by: Simpson’s Surface, Original, Swapped UV, and Simplified at the bottom. Also I attach the Definition AreaQuestion.gh
It’s also interesting to note that Rhino Itself does not take anywhere near as long to calculate.
All achieve as fast as I can select a surface and right click
I know the Area component does a lot more than what Simpson’s rule can achieve i.e. 3D surfaces with complex shapes but it would appear that some sort of evaluation of the surface regarding the UV direction might speed things up or if there was a check for planar surfaces to implement a numerically faster approach such as Simpson’s Rule.
I hope this was all of some use.
Slaynt vie!
Danny
…
s and tool boxes for ute/pickups. It would be really awesome if we could work out a way for the customers to input measurements, model of vehicle, layout etc. Then have a 3D model on screen to display the product. There would probably be a selection of designs styles and material finished for each element then they would choose a layout (in a grid, almost like laying out a site). The end game would also have the ability to flatten/unfold some elements so they can be sent directly to the cutting machines. Produce schedules for ordering, pricing, folding and the works. I have been searching around and people have advised me that Rhino/GH wont be easy to use for a web service and I would be better off building a JS/GL application from scratch. Like these guys have done. https://n-e-r-v-o-u-s.com/cellCycle/ You can actually access all the JS files to have a look at how it works. However, I think that's a bit over kill. I am hoping there may be a way to retool existing software into a workflow which uses Rhino/GH also this would keep the software in my comfort zone and offer a platform that can be easily updated and modified. What I am proposing is a way to provision a pre-setup and suspended VM for each instance of end user interaction. I understand that Rhino is able to work with C+ - Web UI populates a database of the required values. - The user hits the "build" button. - Server provisions (maybe clone the process? to avoid load time? that's where I was going with the VM's) a new instance of rhino/GH. - A script tells the instance where to load the values from. - Rhino/GH produces model, bakes and exports it. - Server then grabs the exported file and uploads it into a webGL viewer. - Process repeats each time user makes a change. There will be a lot of time spent refining the GH definitions and they dont need to be hugely complex o lower the processing time on each one however, I intend to run this on a top of the line server with SSDs so hopefully all the above can be executed in a matter of seconds. File size and UL/DL speeds will be the bottle neck. This also means the server could probably handle several simultaneous instances. Due to existing traffic this should be manageable. Does this sound possible? Does anyone have any experience or insights into this? Cheers guys!
…
p across to Kangaroo 2, but I am still trying to wrap my head around it. I understand that it allows you to incorporate multiple forces dependent on one another a bit better, which is what my question pertains to...
We are currently developing a project around creating a tensile lattice structure within an inflatable. In mocking things up, I have been able to simply inflate forms with static anchor points. I was wondering if it would be possible to link the anchor points for the inflatable shell to tensioned cables or nets pulling on the interior that find equilibrium when the tension is changed?
Below are some illustrations of what I am trying to achieve that I did with a tetrahedron in Kangaroo 1. To get both the inflated form and the tensioned form I had to run two simulations and bake each. I am looking for a way to have to forces of both dependent on one another.
I'm isolating the interior tension member to cables for now, but I would eventually like to expand to suspending 3d netted volumes within the inflatable.
I have also attached my attempted gh file with Kangaroo 2. It kind of works but not as drastically as I would like, and it breaks down very easily. Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated!:)
…
ween the extremes of each goal.
Also see octopus.E for custom evolutionary algorithms.
Download the latest version on food4rhino
It is part of a range of tools developed at the University of Applied Arts Vienna, and Bollinger+Grohmann Engineers.
search for single goal + diversity of solutions
search for best trade offs between 2 to X goals
improve solutions by similarity-goals
choose preferred solutions during a search
change objectives during a search
solutions' 3d models for visual feedback
recorded history
save all search data within the Grasshopper document
save a solution as a Grasshopper State
export to text or text files
Octopus introduces multiple fitness values to the optimization. The best trade-offs between those objectives are searched, producing a set of possible optimum solutions that ideally reach from one extreme trade-off to the other.
Based on SPEA-2 and HypE from ETH Zürich and David Rutten's Galapagos User Interface. Developed by Robert Vierlinger in cooperation with Christoph Zimmel, karamba3d.com and Bollinger+Grohmann Engineers.
To install:
Copy the .gha and .dll file into the Grasshopper components folder
Right-click the file > Properties > make sure there is no "blocked" text
Restart Rhino and Grasshopper
Some examples are provided here.
New commented examples and a brief manual are provided in the download of octopus on food4rhino.
…
Added by Robert Vier at 2:51am on December 6, 2012