Vorticular Decay Sphere

The idea for this model was to try and create a bit more tectonic mass into the previous 'decay' models. The were too blobby and static, they looked too devoid of forces, too digital. So i experimented with different vortices to apply a bit more purpose into the object.

---

The inside of the structure is far more successful than the outside. The general direction and dynamic of it feels far more natural and intentional, but without losing its mass.

More images in comments below.

www.tyrertecture.com

31 members like this

View Full Size

Tags:

Comment

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

Comment by 3dcon on September 4, 2015 at 4:11am: Thank you for your answer Nick.

This is my test. The question is, why is there no porous volume in that sphere?

Is it the resolution? Or are the values for the fields wrong? Or is there another mistake?

Comment by Nick Tyrer on September 4, 2015 at 3:18am

Thanks. I'm not sure if I totally understand the question. But essentially the smaller the grid, the higher the resolution you can achieve with isosurface. Trying to get rid of the 'blobbiness' was pretty much my main aim;

adding some form of direction definitely helps, in this case it was a spinning motion
lapacian smoothing (weaverbird) is also your friend as it does not increase face count

Comment by 3dcon on September 3, 2015 at 8:38am: Wow! That is the best I have seen so far.

What is the trick to get that small structure? Only the resolutionn of the grid?

I tried it with the GH Field Components and Millipede IsoSurface. But it is much more

like "blobs" sticking together and building big solid parts. Any advise?

Comment by Nick Tyrer on July 31, 2015 at 4:15am: Kim, I feel i'm already living in your future, surrounded by 3d printed clutter.

We have an area in our office that is called the 3dprint graveyard. All the good project prints are given to the client, leaving us with the failures, mistakes and unfinished.

Comment by Kim hauer on July 30, 2015 at 9:51am: Very nice Nick!.......... In a few years when I hope we can all afford to buy a 3d printer. I can see a growing collection of this stuff cluttering my home, and my wife will be asking what are you going to do with this one now? :)

Comment by Pieter Segeren on July 30, 2015 at 3:50am: It's beautiful Nick!

Comment by Tudor Cosmatu on July 30, 2015 at 2:44am: love it!

Comment by Nick Tyrer on July 29, 2015 at 11:46am: Yes, i understand. And one of the unintentional benefits of all these spheres i use, is that you can simplify the field values very easily. You don't need the values in the centre or outside of sphere, so using distance to centre point, you can give all the useless values a 1. Cutting down the values you actually need to work out by 80%. Which is helpful when approaching 1 million points.

Comment by David Stasiuk on July 29, 2015 at 11:05am: Directly applying the field values should run faster than things like Cocoon which rely on distance evaluation to geometric elements (depending on the grid size with Millipede, which doesn't make a sparse sampling grid) and ultimately gives more control as well.

Comment by Nick Tyrer on July 29, 2015 at 10:48am: Thanks David, yes my definition is corrupted with the weird poly-line wires of Millepede. Though i stopped using the 'geometry wrapper' tool last year, in favour of creating my field values from scratch. Can't remember why now though...