free form and holes

Who knows the solution?

What analogues exist?

http://www.tess.fr/sites/default/files/styles/photo_projet/public/c...

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mohamed Naeim on August 30, 2016 at 12:14am

YOU CAN START FROM USING THE COMPONENT PATCH

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on August 30, 2016 at 12:39am

Patch is the tip of the iceberg ... but if this has real-life aspirations "matching" nodes to the inner loops IS the iceberg. MeshMachine (actually not but anyway) and the likes.

Then is the "trivial" thingy to create a W truss out of these triads ... IF a geo dome is not enough for structural integrity. Easily addressable via code.

Then is the other anathema of our blob admiring Times: planarity. Blame that %$#%$# YAS Marina hotel that ignited all that. That said Daniel did a mighty job in K2 on that matter.

Not nuclear science (I would strongly suggest triangulation instead of quads) ... but not the easiest thingy around especially if node/strut clash checks are required (only addressable via code).

Plan B (manual solution): Evolute Tools Pro.

Permalink Reply by Mohamed Naeim on August 30, 2016 at 12:39am

CHECK THIS

YOU CAN START FROM HERE

Attachments:

surface.gh, 13 KB

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on August 30, 2016 at 1:22am

If we forget the spiral thingy (complex even via C#) and having into mind the sizes of the panels (consideration Numero Uno) AND the contemporary trend towards quads (or higher) ... this is the recommended way to start digging into the rabbit hole (load R file for the demo Brep).

Notice the departure(*) from the YAS logic in the proximity of inner/outer loops ...if there's any logic on that kitsch envelope (especially with these pink/magenta LED's during the F1 race).

(*) if you attempt to triangulate the inner/outer loops you'll end up chasing your own tail (aesthetically speaking).

BTW: for Blob's form I would suggest forgetting GH and use TSplines (many bugs, mind).

Attachments:

YAZ_kinda_demo_V2A.gh, 146 KB
YAZ_kinda_demo_V1.3dm, 172 KB

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on August 30, 2016 at 1:35am

BTW: Of course there's always many ultra expensive ways to spend cash for absolutely no reason.

Permalink Reply by spiral on August 30, 2016 at 3:56am

Thanks Mohamed and Peter. The surface, in reality consists of a grid of Chebyshev. Perhaps while only Plan B (manual solution): Evolute Tools Pro and TSplines

Permalink Reply by spiral on September 1, 2016 at 10:40am

one hole, not net Chebyshev, tools t-splines and wb

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on September 1, 2016 at 10:59am

The problem with that type of approach/underlying surface (or polysurface) is that panels differ quite vastly (compare base loop VS hole loop). From a node angle and down it could be impossible to make it using other than opaque panels (whilst various seal issues arise) not to mention node clash issues with regard the load bearing structure (LBS).

For instance imagine this structural glazing system trying to follow "steep" strut angles (unless you opt for a very expensive planar glazing solution supported via brackets via some MERO KK System or equivalent):

Permalink Reply by spiral on September 1, 2016 at 11:19pm

All right, this is a problem not only of geometry, I have the original gridshell, coating in the form of scales or cloth

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on September 2, 2016 at 12:14am

That said MERO NK/ZK systems (like the node captured) are not very "cooperative" with regard steep strut angles.

http://www.mero.de/index.php/en/construction-systems/nodes.

If you have plans to design anything "similar" in real-life I would strongly suggest:

1. The bottom-top approach (or at least a parallel top-bottom to bottom-top). I.e. BEFORE adopting any concept design orientation have a full understatement of the capabilities of the candidate LBS/envelope system (either commercially available or some bespoke custom solution). This frequently yields a rejection of the initial idea in favor of more pragmatic solutions (in relation with the budget as well),

2. Mastermind some way to check clash issues on nodes/struts (use trigonometry instead of boolean "solid" ops). That's rather easy with code ... not that easy via native components.

3. Exploit tensegrity trusses (say: a double tetra) that allow far more topological liberties but they cost an arm and a leg (2-5 times more than an equivalent MERO system). This is also easily done via code ... not that easy via native components.

4. Exploit tensile membrane solutions that fully justify that poor old long forgotten form follows function. This could yield totally different topologies mind.

5. Accept the fact that an optimum "whole" requires an equally optimum control on "nuts and bolts".

Permalink Reply by spiral on September 2, 2016 at 12:54am

My Node System are cheaper, do not require complex equipment and calculation of angles, it is easier to do than to provide them with an algorithm. "Accept the fact that an optimum "whole" requires an equally optimum control on "nuts and bolts".

Permalink Reply by Laurent DELRIEU on September 2, 2016 at 2:31pm

At the end, here is a possibility to replicate these pavillons. It was a good exercice. The bad render on top is due to the fact that I try to change quad to planar quad (2 triangles) with an horizontal separation.

On next post I will try to explain how to do that.