Voronoi on Torus

Comment

Comment by asaf yaacobi on September 9, 2012 at 10:19am

hi there.

im trying to figure this out.  while working with both def by Arie and by Vicente i get the same result. however i dont understand why the mesh direction is weird. would love some help for what im doing wrong. thnx

Comment by Andrew Heumann on August 25, 2012 at 10:48am

John - I think they belong to uto's mesh edit tools

Comment by John Gulliford on August 25, 2012 at 10:21am

I am having trouble finding Mesh Weld and Mesh Unify normals? Which plug-in contains those, I thought it was Weaverbird?

Comment by Vicente Soler on August 23, 2012 at 5:48pm

Yes, making radical changes in the path structure (like going from a single to multiple surfaces, as you mention) will force you to update the pathmapper, but in most cases enabling "simplify" on an input directly preceding the pathmapper will avoid the usual changes in the path structure when adding components.

Some wildcards do exist in the pathmapper, but if you mean variables then I agree. In this particular case though there was no need for variables.

Comment by Andrew Heumann on August 23, 2012 at 5:09pm

Yeah actually I tend to avoid the pathmapper for the same reason. You won't find it in any of my definitions. If it could handle wildcards it would be 10x more useful. 

Comment by Arie-Willem de Jongh on August 22, 2012 at 12:14pm

Yep thats true dude, I changed it in the edit. But like i pointed out your def differs from mine in the fact of the use of the 3D voronoi comp in favor of the 2D one. Thats what in wanted to show,  the rest doesn't really interest me, there's probably 100 ways to do the other things.

The pathmapper and me have a love hate relation haha, i love the component, its really helpfull! But if your tree structure changes, your pathmapper won't function (in this case adding 2 or more surfaces in the input). Maybe David can make the pathmapper more dynamic...

Cheers and thanks again for your input

Comment by Vicente Soler on August 22, 2012 at 12:00pm

Most of the time you'd be right calling me a smartass, but I was't right now, at least not on purpose. Well, ...maybe just a little bit.

 

You posted "this is the definition Vicente made", i just pointed out it will be more appropiate to say "this definition is based on the one Vicente posted" since someone downloading it would be expecting to see the same components as in the screenshot.

 

You explained well why you don't need 5 shift list components even without the pathmapper, but I don't agree that it makes the definition more clear with them. And why avoid the pathmapper, it's very useful.

 

I didn't actually cull the end points (I have warped enabled), I let the weld vertices component take care of that, but I think it's better to cull them with a cull index component as you noted.

Comment by Arie-Willem de Jongh on August 22, 2012 at 11:22am

Yes I know I always try to avoid the pathmapper as much as I can. Point is though you used the 3D voronoi component instead of the 2D one to achieve the result, the rest is not really relevant. 5 shifts or one... really... not sure if your being a smartass ;) Two of the shift list are shifting 0 position so are basically not needed, which brings it down to only 3, and the first one i could also use a cull index component. So 2 left and if i combined the list before i would only need one, like yours. I did that for clarities sake so it is clear to others the 4 points needed to build up the quad.

 

Comment by Vicente Soler on August 22, 2012 at 11:07am

The definition attached to the main post is based on the one I made, but it's not the same.

There are 5 shift list components in there, while I used 1. At most you should use 2.

Comment by Arie-Willem de Jongh on August 21, 2012 at 6:40pm

Ah sweet dude! thats a more elegant solution indeed :)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page