am doing the paneling tutorial from the first primer..pg 88. i baked it but while selecting the multiple geometries i cannot select individual ones, they are selected as surfaces..is that ok or .....?
Added by SHILPA PANDE at 6:25am on February 16, 2013
a working solution with replacing this line of code with:
Dim charList As New List(Of Char)(charArr)
Is this because of a version incompatibility (I'm using Rhino 4.0, and GH 0.8.0062)? Just curious.
Regards,
JJ…
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
GH) > then define (still in GH) some instance definition (or many: case variants) > then place it according some "policy" (3d point grid and the likes). Note: Only doable with code, mind (C# in my case).
Obviously you can skip the creation part and instruct GH to deal with instance definitions already listed in the Block Manager (say: find the block named "cell666_B3" blah, blah) ... but that means that you can only use them (meaning a rather "limited" parametric approach) and not make them from scratch (meaning a true parametric approach).
But I guess that you've tried the block way in the Rhino environment already. That said I use rather solely this approach in GH and yields quite manageable object collections - I would say "real-time" response (up to 20K instances) but I use dedicated Xeon E5 1630 V3 workstations (with NVida Quadros K4200 and up for the graphic response part of the equation) so the "performance" is rather a subjective thing.
Modifications:
easily doable with GH (on instance definitions at placing time: since you need only to scale them and not vary their topology).
Anyway post a portion of the R file.…
FORE MeshMachine (rather better) or after
BTW: For a mesh with 7M points ... well... you'll need some proper CPU to deal in a reasonable amount of time (what about a Xeon E5 1630 V3?).
Alternatively find a friend who knows very well Modo ... and see first hand what the US Movie Industry is all about.…
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?…