algorithmic modeling for Rhino
Hi all,
I'm creating a definition based off of constructing points, then curves, then surfaces. The problem is the definition has become very convoluted and messy. I cannot get the BREPs to close, even though the parameters that make up the points, curves, and surfaces are uniform; they don't agree with each other.
My question is very wide ranged... How can I create geometries which are much more controllable, yet still follow a set of rules which I interpret and envision? How can I then in turn facilitate the further adjustments and manipulations, including the numbers and the relationships between masses that can provide more flexibilities and ease of control?
I really would like to be able to control my surfaces, void breps, and even create build controlled surfaces connecting these void spaces with very specific parameters.
Again, I know this is very open ended question, but I know this community to be very creative, genius, and have unbelievable ingenuity, so I'm tossing out a line hoping to spur up a little discussion.... thanks.
CKN
Tags:
Thank you for the help.
Do you have any recommendations on how to gain control of the closed brep based off of that un-included 5th curve?
Maybe not in this specific scenario, but you can see the output I'm reaching for based off of the first definition geometry I posted, and there is some slight variation.
I do realize with the edge surface, since that 5th curve is non-inclusive in the parameters that it won't have any affect on the surface, so my question is more along the lines of maybe taking this already built surface and brep and controlling the interior void spaces based off of that curve that was ignored.
Thanks again!
Welcome to
Grasshopper
Added by Parametric House 0 Comments 0 Likes
Added by Parametric House 0 Comments 0 Likes
Added by Parametric House 0 Comments 0 Likes
Added by Parametric House 0 Comments 0 Likes
Added by Parametric House 0 Comments 0 Likes
© 2024 Created by Scott Davidson. Powered by