Incrementally scaled geometry

Hi guys, I'm currently working on a "V" structure for a project, and I want it to incrementally scale its size along a curve. Wat I did was copying it several times then scale all of them (see attached picture 1), but the thing is that the center of the scale must be at the end of every curve so it can be continous and not overlapping each other.

I also tried to do the same thing but scaling them between two boundary curves (see attached picture 2 from rhino), but I guess I first need to know the logic of the proportional scaling process, so I hope somebody can help me out with this problem.

Any comment would be apreciated. Thanks!

Attachments:

scale.png, 79 KB
scale 2.PNG, 19 KB

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by johnnyUtah05 on July 23, 2015 at 12:01pm

Hello Salvador,

Is this what you are seeking? If you want the the triangles to overlap from the center you can use the average point for an x transformation as well.

Cheers,

Erik

Permalink Reply by Joseph Oster on July 23, 2015 at 1:02pm

I stumbled around in circles for awhile on this one... I skipped "along a curve" because that implies orienting each copy so that both of its ends are on a "curve"; more complicated than just putting them all in a straight line.

I scaled all the copies in place, then moved each one in 'X' by the sum of the distance between end points of its predecessors.

Attachments:

scaling_2015Jul23a.gh, 12 KB

Permalink Reply by johnnyUtah05 on July 23, 2015 at 2:05pm

Salvador,

Here is a solution along a curve. I believe you mentioned that. Or did you want an attractor curve to control the scaling? I am unclear on your meaning.

Permalink Reply by Joseph Oster on July 23, 2015 at 3:29pm

Erik - Are you scaling only height? (I don't read hieroglyphics)

Permalink Reply by johnnyUtah05 on July 23, 2015 at 3:35pm

Hey Joseph,

Yes it appears so. It probably makes more sense to scale the whole geometry like you have

. By hieroglyphics you mean the icons?

Permalink Reply by Salvador Gabriel on July 23, 2015 at 3:40pm

Hey Erik, thanks for the time, thats kind of what I want, but i certainly need to scale the whole geometry, not only heigth, so that way the angle between each V columns can be the same. Please see the response to Joseph, I think I made it more clear.

Cheers.

Permalink Reply by Salvador Gabriel on July 23, 2015 at 3:36pm

Hey thanks Joseph, sorry I mentioned "along a curve" because it actually is, but for this purpose I set it to a straight line. Your definition seems to solve one of my problems, but I need more control over the scale factor, I mean I have these two curves; one is for the base, and the second one defines my initial and last heigth, so I have to scale them between these curves. The picture below shows the real situation, that was a test I did but is not what I want beacause the angle between each column is different. I hope I've been clear, and thanks a lot for the time.

cheers.

Permalink Reply by Joseph Oster on July 23, 2015 at 6:49pm

Uh... I'm sure this is one of the classic CAD riddles that amuses the experts as they watch us re-invent the algorithm(s). :)

scaling_2015Jul23b.gh fixes an off-by-one error that duplicated the last shape.
scaling_2015Jul23d.gh suggests the probable course (?) to solving this one, along an arbitrary curve?

Attachments:

scaling_2015Jul23b.gh, 14 KB
scaling_2015Jul23d.gh, 17 KB

Permalink Reply by johnnyUtah05 on July 23, 2015 at 9:09pm

I think what you have stated is that you want controlled scale, equal angled, triangles between a set of curves. Here is one way to do that (if, of course, that is your intention). Pardon the annotation coding as its longer than the actual definition.

Permalink Reply by Salvador Gabriel on July 24, 2015 at 9:32am

Hey Erik that's exactly what I wanted, thanks a lot! My head just exploded yesterday trying to figure it out how to do it. Is it possible that you share with me this definition?

Thanks again Erik!

Cheers

Permalink Reply by johnnyUtah05 on July 24, 2015 at 12:50pm

Hi Salvador,

Glad I could help! Hopefully this is what you need. I have attached the definition. I always find it ironic that the annotation portion is longer than the actual definition.

Furthermore, sorry about the confusion pertaining to the icons vs the names. I always had an easier time with the icons but certainly understand reasons for not using them - such a controversial topic :) My last professor wouldn't let us turn in definitions unless they had icons and said David originally designed Rhino's icons and that his GH icons were an extension of this. So who knows... they are quite nice.

I had the same issue with the wrong image opening, must be a glitch.

Attachments: