Intersecting BREP's

Hi All,

I am new to Grasshopper,Rhino and Parametric Design.

I have a question / problem with my definition and would greatly appreciate some help.

The aim is to generate a canopy with hexagonal openings which their apertures are driven by the distance from a attractor point.

I am struggling with intersecting the solid hexagons which have been offset to give them a volume going through another solid surface (the canopy). I wish the remove these hexagonal volumes from the surface to leave a perforated series of opening in the canopy.

Part of the aim of this project was to teach myself Grasshopper, but I have reached a point which I can't solve or find any relevant help and can't seem to progress with my project, so would greatly appreciate any help.

A image of the Definition and the Definition itself are attached, the definition just needs 4 curves to generate the target surface (any shape), and a attractor point defining in Rhino. Hopefully the definition is self explanatory if however probably quite unsophisticated.

Thanks in advance.

Simon.

Attachments:

110328_Surface Component Definition HELP.png, 3.8 MB
110328_Surface Component HELP.ghx, 888 KB

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Pieter Segeren on March 28, 2011 at 3:56pm

Hi Simon, I think you could split your original surface with the hexagons on it (Surface Split with flattened list of your hexagons).
With List Item you can get the 'perforated' surface by measuring the List Length (number of hexagons) and put this number, minus 1, into the List Item's i input. Offset the surface plus and minus half the height you want for your canopy. Find their edges and figure out a way to get a valid loft:)

Attachments:

CanopyPSG.png, 184 KB
CanopyPSG.ghx, 277 KB

Permalink Reply by Simon Bellamy on March 29, 2011 at 6:27am

Hi Pieter,

Thanks alot for looking at that, quite a different definition from my original one, shows there is a variety of solutions to solve a similar problem in Grasshopper!

It works well, however the "Surface Split" was very memory consuming, even on my machine which isn't normally too bad, it also seemed to struggle and crash, especially if the target surface was more complex, or the (U,V) values higher.
Problem solved, but just wondering if there could be any further improvements.

Many thanks again.

Simon.

Permalink Reply by Pieter Segeren on March 29, 2011 at 7:15am

You're welcome Simon,

I thought I understood what you were after, and cut off the far right pieces of your definition (so it fitted on my screen;)), and tried to keep it simple and easy to look at/follow.

I think it could be further improved, but don't know how (yet). Do let me know if you find a more efficient way!

RSS