algorithmic modeling for Rhino
Comment
Ivan did you check this out?
Ivan Kiryakov no offense taken - I value your input (that's why I made an account here). I think you bring up several valid points. Further to that, there are some parameters in this model that could be revisited relative to the fabrication process (3D powder printing). For example, some of the small mesh apertures became so small that the loose powder fused to the model - these apertures should have a minimum limit that prevents this from happening. Also, some of the interior cavities were too small or too deep to allow the vacuum tool inside, which meant that we had to excavate the part with the weight of the powder still inside - as you can imagine this caused breaks along some of the thinner spanning members of the topology. This could be avoided by enlarging or shortening some of these cavities, or simply by splitting the topology prior to the print and assembling it afterward.
Well mesh topology optimization , how the parts fit together,what the overall form has to say...all things you have to carefully consider before doing something like this (having in mind all the shared knowledge and components in this forum), I don't want to offend you and I also understand the work and the value behind this project,I looked at all the pics from the show and it looks like highly interesting stuff.
Just as a fellow kangaroo-weaverbird-grasshopper nerd I am not fully satisfied, thats all.
have a good day
This is a piece by Patrick Delorey. It's a minimal surface that was modeled in Grasshopper using Weaverbird.
@Ivan in what sense? Where would you take this concept, keeping in mind that in the end it must be able to be 3D printed in a ZCorp powder printer?
this could have been so much better..
Welcome to
Grasshopper
© 2024 Created by Scott Davidson. Powered by
You need to be a member of Grasshopper to add comments!