Offset brep_Pieces with clean intersections.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by RENE on November 13, 2017 at 6:26pm

Hi Demiurgos,

If I'm understanding it right, seems like you want to achieve something like this? Multiple ways of doing it. See attachment for a possible start? Good luck!

Attachments:

• helpforDemiurgos.gh, 12 KB

Permalink Reply by Dēmiurgos on November 13, 2017 at 6:41pm

HI, rene. Actually that's what i dont have to do. I'm looking for full contact between adjacent surfaces and vertex, just like the cube that I uploaded. I'm already modelling something that could work for the fabrication meanings, but i couldn´t afford it automatically doing an algorithm by myself.

Permalink Reply by Dēmiurgos on November 13, 2017 at 6:41pm

Thank you for your reply.

Permalink Reply by RENE on November 13, 2017 at 6:44pm

Cool,

The solid surfaces do make contact at corners.

I simply moved them away from their center off of each face's normal vector to display them just like the cube you made, but they don't have to move away.

However I might have still misunderstood what you're after.

Permalink Reply by Dēmiurgos on November 13, 2017 at 6:54pm

This is what I mean. The objects not only intersect to each other because of the lack of control of the edges angle, but also theres no contact between the pieces by their lateral faces. Theres only contct in the edges of the biggest face of each solid.

What I want to achieve is to have unions just like in the cube, and also with planar surfaces, not like with the weaverbird mesh thickness that outputs surfaces with curvature, to mention something.



Ive readed some other threads and they haven't touched that point.

Permalink Reply by RENE on November 13, 2017 at 6:56pm

Ah! This image shows your problem clearly. Yes, definitely more difficult as opposed to a simple cube. 

Permalink Reply by Dēmiurgos on November 13, 2017 at 7:00pm

I'm modeling it right now to deliver, but I didn't knew that it was going to be this hard... To achieve or to find some resources...

Permalink Reply by Joseph Oster on November 13, 2017 at 7:09pm

This only works with cubes... cute though, eh?  I'll try again for something more general purpose.

Attachments:

• miter_box_2017Nov13a.png, 46 KB

Permalink Reply by Dēmiurgos on November 13, 2017 at 7:16pm

Joseph, thank you for your support. I did some research and saw this post from Daniel Piker, I think, that mentioned something about cross product of meshes vertex. I couldn´t achieve it like that neither. The result was the same always: parabola-like curved surfaces

Permalink Reply by Joseph Oster on November 13, 2017 at 7:54pm

Here is a go at the tilted rectangular box at the bottom of the "?".  The diagonal lines are an indication of failure.  Four of the six faces work but two are twisted garbage.  This is the kind of typical Grasshopper nonsense that will drive you up the wall!  And it won't work with the curved top part of the "?" anyway.  I give up, this is impossible.  :)

Seriously, this reminds me of solutions I've seen somewhere for thickening a complex bottle shape, but that didn't involve miter joints between adjacent surfaces.  Nope, impossible.  (kidding...  I'd love to see someone do it, probably a plugin as you suggest.)

Attachments:

• miter_box_2017Nov13b.gh, 15 KB

Permalink Reply by RENE on November 13, 2017 at 7:15pm

Solved (I think?)!

Simpler than we assumed. Attached file has your shape not the one in my picture below ;)

Attachments:

• helpforDemiurgos (1).gh, 12 KB

Permalink Reply by Dēmiurgos on November 13, 2017 at 7:25pm

This is really funny. You're taking the same steps that I took. But there are conditions to take in count before.

Because it has to be manufactured, we need to control the offset distance. Using an scale doesn't make the resultant breps uniform. That's why I was telling to Joseph before about the normals of the vertex and the cross product.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page