Grasshopper

algorithmic modeling for Rhino

Hi Friends:

I'm doing a simple Parametric Tube Table, which requires filleted corners where the Table Rails meet the Table Legs. I don't know why I lose all my table legs except one when I connect the Fillet slider to the Polygon Rf input?

Views: 1665

Attachments:

Replies to This Discussion

when you fillet the curve you lose the vertices that are driving your legs. see the example :)

Attachments:

I don't want mitered table rail corners. I want all intersections filleted just like the single leg which attaches to the table rails. :)

When you fille the polygon curve you lose the vertices apart from one which is probably the end of the curve. That is why you also lose the legs because the vertices drive the legs.

Just double up the polygon component and fillet one. Use the one without the fillet for the vertices.

Attachments:

Thanks martyn:

Yes that works when using 4 Table Sides (legs) but for some reason increasing or decreasing Table Sides (legs), makes the Table Rails now disappear...yikes!

I'm not sure what I did differently but it seems to work for me (attached).

P.S.  Parts get lost in the 'Mesh Union (MUnion)' - use 'Solid Union (SUnion)' instead!

Attachments:

I just tried it and at first, with 5 legs, the rails disappeared and then after changing the slider, they reappeared!

My SUnion didn't work though!

Perhaps this would be better done with just lines and the excellent Exoskeleton component?

Attachments:

Did you use my code?  Looks rock solid to me, from 3 to 10 legs.

P.S.  I just tried yours and it breaks - your code is different; you added a 'Crv CP' instead of using the 'DeBrep' vertices ('V') for the 'Cyl B' input.

I just used the CrvCP to get the table leg points back onto the filleted polygon.

Maybe the SUnion is a bit flaky because joining cylinders with identical rads creates those infinite slithers inthe corners. Your fix below with the varying rads solves this!

OK, I understand now that you used 'Crv CP' for the same purpose that I used 'Pull' point.  So besides the 'x-0.001' expression I used, the big deal was using the same radius for the fillet as the radius of the table legs and 'Pipe'.

Perseverance furthers.

-- I Ching

If I'm not mistaken both martyn and joseph use Mesh union in each of their revised scripts,
but for some reason only joseph's works on my computer..... I'm visually not able to see any other difference.
(it would be great to have a compare feature, would came in handy after spending to much time the darn computer:)  )

martyn I also like your Exo alternative .....cool!

Yes!  A compare feature for GH code would be AWSOME!!

I didn't notice the need to replace 'MUnion' with 'SUnion' until after I posted my code because I hadn't disabled the preview for the components that feed the union.  I changed the screen shot but can't change an uploaded file without deleting the post and re-posting.

I was just about to upload it but now it breaks on polygons of 3, 6, 8, 9 or 10 sides!!???  How bizarre and frustrating...  Maybe I wasn't looking closely enough before.  Probably the 'Pipe' around the table top, I've had 'SUnion' trouble with pipes before.

I just noticed the negative slider value being used for 'Length' of the table legs - that's odd.

Attachments:

OK, here's something a little different that is working for all polygons...

  1. polygon 'Fillet Radius (Rf)', 'Pipe' radius and 'Cylinder' radius are all set by the same slider.
  2. an expression is used on 'Cylinder' radius (the table legs) to subtract 0.01 from that value. (it fails otherwise)  (P.S. 0.001 also works)
  3. the vertices of the polygon without the radius, determined by 'Discontinuity (Disc)' points, are 'Pull'ed to the radiused polygon and used as the centers for the cylinders (table legs).

These steps seem to line things up such that 'SUnion' always works!?

Attachments:

RSS

About

Translate

Search

Videos

  • Add Videos
  • View All

© 2024   Created by Scott Davidson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service