Hoopsnake Iterations - Data carries across ?

Hay,

I'v got a nested HS function that moves the first item (a curve) +1 until its X from the end, then moves onto the next list item and so on.

Just to clarify I'm trying to get it to move cleanly - always start at 0 move every new list item.

The issue is that when moving from the list item HS to the move +1 HS the distance from X is then transferred onto the next list item for the first "cycle".

So;

Select curve List item 1 (& Direction & Line for evaluation of X)

+ 1 move

until distance is X from end (call this distance y)

Select curve list item 2 (& etc)

Curve starts at y

Then goes to origin

+ 1 move

until distance is X from end and so on maintaining (variable) Y every time

.... Reading this I can't make sense of it, the only thing I can suggest is to look at the definition, especially at the ends of the shape where you can Really see it happen(zoomed and waiting for it to come around). But you can only see it for a split second.

This is driving me insane, so any help will be met with grovelling thanks

James

Attachments:

Hoopsnake_issue.gh, 24 KB

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on April 1, 2015 at 2:29pm

Squares pose serious rigidity issues > stick to triangulation.

Kangaroo can aid up to a point for relaxing triangles.

High tech solution: semi-monocoque or monocoque triangles: all in one say with "polycarbonate" kind of looks (contact Quick Parts in USA on that matter ).

Permalink Reply by James on April 1, 2015 at 5:21pm

Yeah you should tell my tutor that (squares) he's been working on something similar (unbenounced to me until recently) for 2 years... he also said this wouldn't work... lets prove him wrong! Actually when I got the extrusions I nearly believed him, but some hot glue triangulated prototypes later and I'm back on the green pill (smelling my own farts).

Polycarbonate would rock, then the material properties would cause object redesign (not that bad) but the reoccurring issues is connectivity between the truss' and the triangles.

However polycarbonate would allow for this:

If he put the recipe out there.

Permalink Reply by James on April 1, 2015 at 1:10pm

Just in case you need a laugh... Just got these for an arm and a leg... and their all bent and twisted... ha ha hahaha HA! ;)

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on April 1, 2015 at 2:20pm

Not so funny I must say: If they are NOT the right stuff > this means that the adapter "policy" must being reconsidered > meaning a MERO type of "truss" ? (Plan Z: left/right threads in the adapter "protrusions" + inner threads in the struts > hideous cost > rabbit hole on sight > now what?).

PS: use Polycarbonate (PC) or ... hmm ... er Carbon tubes (they rapidly become more and more affordable: carbon is the concrete of tomorrow).

http://www.easycomposites.co.uk/Category/pultruded-carbon-fibre-tub...

http://www.eplastics.com/Lexan_Polycarbonate_Tube

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on April 1, 2015 at 2:48pm

BTW: I have more than 100 Kangaroo scripts (for very simple like this up to extremely complex). For a start get the simplest possible

Attachments:

equilateralize_demo1.ghx, 204 KB

Permalink Reply by James on April 1, 2015 at 5:34pm

Yeah, not funny X(

But "the" technician was away today, so lets see what's said tomorrow.

The quality of the profile is bang on all the way, its just the material thickness I reckon. Plus F**k forget the MERO style at this scale, I mean I like the impossible but the improbable??

Do they extrude carbon rod? they must? I cant google ne more atm, I'll waste time with that vid tomorrow.

Carbon & Polycarbonate would be for the kickstarter campaign as they are more then double what I paid per meter (I brought alot X.[ ).

Kangaroo wise: very cool application for the abstract shapes. It turned pingu into a dinosaur (also cool) stegosaurus style.

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on April 1, 2015 at 11:45pm

The "generic" case:

1. From a point and up you'll need pack algorithms for the triangle sheets (going from "paper" to something like MICROLON/Lexan/etc).

2. Pack can address waste material issues AND add another "trivial" constrain to the puzzle (for instance the PC sheets are 1.2*2.2m > meaning the obvious). This is addressable ONLY via the black bill (don't even think to use GH components for solving similar stuff).

3. One-off nodes are probably OK BUT for larger scales you'll need MERO type of approach > meaning assembly/component concepts > meaning dealing with instance Rhino definitions: blocks in plain English (don't even think to use GH components for solving similar stuff).

4. "Engulfing" type of strut extrusions are rather the best option (use aluminum in this case) > meaning profiles that can "wrap" the triangle content edge (be that "paper" or Lexan/PC).

5. The whole thing appears "easy" but on a pro level is rather quite challenging and obviously totally undo able without the black pill.

6. So: mesh relaxation <> adapter topology matters <> pack issues <> component design <> triangle content design <> cost <> you named it (for <> read "interact").

Such a "simple" case ... eh?

Permalink Reply by James on April 2, 2015 at 3:22am

Is pack algorithms the same as nesting? if so then I have got that. It also separates face by colour for the laser cutter to take different coloured sheets, it labels it blah blah.

I dont have the means to manipulate PC easily (I mean we have a couple of CNC routers... just no staff to run them... thanks middle management) Plus the Lexan is uncomfortably close to my tutors work (he using Correx). And Honestly unless it was sheet (rather then corrugated) then it wouldn't be the desired aesthetic.

I think if it was to change to PC then I would get rid of the nodes as we know them and just connect the PC to itself from the mid point of each line (fully realising the semi-monocoque style. This would forgo the acute angle annoyance.

I agree that the larger would lend itself to MERO style, but as it is with the extrusion being 4*3mm its tiny screws would drive me bonkers. I would use NX or something for a component based approach.

If it was going to take this to the next level then a rethink of materials etc would mean a more stable work flow/object/outcome, but now I'm past the point of no return (not as dramatic as that sounds). Although it does all seem to be falling apart at the last hurdle [dun dun dunnn!!] ;)

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on April 2, 2015 at 4:47am

I see Rubicon over there (but it's just a river).

PS: pack algos are "trivial" stuff that do that:

http://www.pack-any-shape.com/

Critical for designing things in real-life (paid by real-people) like components in AEC envelopes (roofs/facades), domes, cats, dogs and the likes. I have some stuff but runs in UNIX O/S (I don't really like Windows to be honest) and works with MCAD apps.

Permalink Reply by James on April 2, 2015 at 5:12am

I'm really tempted by pinguy (dont laugh) as I have passed unix/linux once or twice before... just never the need or the inclination to pursue such a complex thing.

I have my school teachers words ringing in my ears,

"its only easy if you know how"

I mean yes it would eventually make the Rubicon a tarmacked paradise where I could be doing burnout's with one hand and composing design with the other... but that's a while away, or (if I was smart) it would be out sourced to someone that could do it much better. In fact the more I think about it, the more I'm just a day dreamer.

Permalink Reply by peter fotiadis on April 2, 2015 at 8:36am

OK, all these river matters are certainly ... er ... well ... serious matters ...

... but what about the (gloss) black pill itself? Do you want it or should I recycle it? (BTW: pink struts + fluo green [hand painted] "balls" are extra cool: kitsch is the new chic these days etc etc).

BTW: Boy this IS kitsch, he he