algorithmic modeling for Rhino

MArch UDII_Bartlett UCL Computational Course _ Associative modelling Sessions // Attractor Logics.3_Research

Views: 1013


You need to be a member of Grasshopper to add comments!

Join Grasshopper

Comment by Kelly Neill on November 25, 2015 at 11:43pm

Hi Iker -- Have you had any luck in resolving the script? If at all possible would you be able to share your script as I am very interested in how you worked it out and how I could apply it to my agent algorithm. Thank you!! 

Comment by Vicente Soler on December 18, 2014 at 4:48am

Daniel Piker last blog post reminded me of the reason of the non-manifolds.

It's because of the use of cubes. The space has to be packed in a way where coincident edges are shared by only 3 solids (like a voronoi diagram).

Comment by Vicente Soler on December 15, 2014 at 6:41am

Rather than using a second attractor what I did is add the boundary faces of the non smoothed out mesh to the smooth out mesh. This could be done more than once to add additional rings of faces to smooth out the transition.

I noticed the non-manifold problem, same thing happens in my definition.

Comment by I_M_F [Iker Mugarra Flores] on December 15, 2014 at 5:46am

Ups!!!! forgot to mention that I am still trying to reduce the computing time as it still a bit heavy to re-fresh and also some times the final mesh has few faces that are non-manifold due to original mesh derived from the voxels... as soon as I find a way around I will share the def.


Comment by I_M_F [Iker Mugarra Flores] on December 15, 2014 at 5:42am

Vicente let me know when are you around and we could go for a beer!


Comment by I_M_F [Iker Mugarra Flores] on December 15, 2014 at 5:38am

Hi Vicente,

Great solution with native components!, but it is slightly different approach to mine, I use one attractor to cull the near by boxes withing the range to dynamically define the the base mesh and a the second attractor is the most important one, I use the same Curve but with this attractor i define the area for the increment of resolution, I defined that way so I could control the edges of the shape decide between a sharper or smoother edge when the increment of resolution occurs. Also my approach allows to dynamical re-adjust to different levels of higher resolution from 1 to 2 to 3 while the boundary condition retopologize itself to match the specified resolution.    

Also at first I wanted to use only native component but the computing time was getting to high so I switch to weaverbird to reduce the number of stored data. 

Comment by Vicente Soler on December 15, 2014 at 4:13am

It's possible, but you can increase the iterations of the smooth mesh component. The curve is also placed lower creating sharper angles.

Nevertheless they are done differently. I think the original first uses laplacian smoothing to smooth the boundary of jagged box faces, then uses catmull clark to smooth out the seams.

I didn't use catmull clark (because trying to implement it using only stardard components will result in me shooting myself in the face) so what I did is first pull the vertices to a fixed distance from the curve and then used the smooth mesh component for smoothing the seams.

Comment by Ángel Linares on December 15, 2014 at 3:38am

Nice one Vicente. But, is it me or your solution is not so smooth in some parts as Iker is?

Comment by Vicente Soler on December 14, 2014 at 3:58pm

Very nice. I had a go at it using standard components (no plugins or scripting...why do I do this to myself...). Definition here.

Iker, I'm every week at the Bartlett now, hope to see you around.

Comment by I_M_F [Iker Mugarra Flores] on December 14, 2014 at 12:17pm





  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2020   Created by Scott Davidson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service