One way to do
variable_Offset.gh (51.0 KB)
One way to do
I need control over the offset across the entire area.
I need people to ask politely and elaborate.
The offset is actually affecting the whole surface, you just want (or would like, let’s say would like) something different that only makes sense to you right now… Until you give us more details
connotations are in the mind of the beholder.
I’ll try providing more details asap.
Some kind of attractor function, perhaps? Choose attractor point with MD Slider in cyan group:
There is probably an easier way to do that…
If I had more time, I would have written a shorter letter.
Blaise Pascal? John Locke? Benjamin Franklin? Henry David Thoreau? Cicero? Woodrow Wilson?
I just want to be able to control the variance of the offset. I think Rhino already has some function in this regard.
I merely expect grasshopper to add parametric control is all.
You’re still using the old definition, did you try the last one I posted?
If it’s not what you’re looking for, I still don’t get the question.
Maybe a scheme and/or gh file would help us help you.
k, I wasn’t sure what you meant but after I messed with your file, I think I got excited.
But how do I make more of those all over the surface in order to control every point? edges, etc.?
And yes, I need it to be simple to implement so less skilled users can benefit from it’s power.
K this kind of works to do what I want, but not very intuitive yet.
Also, I want/need control over the variance relative to each edge per say.
Wishing doesn’t make it so.
You can have multiple attractors, curves as attractors, formulas that produce patterns and damp the attractor effect when near an edge. All standard stuff but you have to write it:
I don’t like the attractor effect already. Maybe there’s a better way to write it…
I was hoping I’d not have to be a software programmer just to be able to interpret what I’m seeing ppl doing with grasshopper.
I’ve been trying to be a grasshopper user for years now, and it’s still not intuitive as much as it should be.
I should probably just try using regular Rhino offset tools and see how it goes, but then it wont be parametric at all…
Grasshopper is programming. Not everyone has the aptitude for it. What I posted here is only one simple example of attractors. The alternative (sometimes combined) is formulas (“expressions”) that produce patterns (“ripples”, bumps, whatever).
Fair enough, but it’s supposed to be ‘visual’ programming, and it’s supposed to be ‘parametric’.
And while those may be true to some extent, in my opinion what everyone has been doing with grasshopper since antiquity is way beyond what it should have done since the beginning – which is very simple parametric modeling.
But no, everyone has skipped that and never turned back.
People are going way into the abyss with algorithms and fractals etc,
But seriously where is the simple “visual” parametric modeling feasibility?
Is it too much to ask from the grasshopper universe I mean really…
Sorry if this gets negatively connotated – but it’s been very frustrating for me coming from the 3D solid modeling world for decades seeing grasshopper universe using the word “parametric” and going way beyond where it should while skipping a bunch of very basic stuff.
…maybe what I have to do is figure out how to make a plugin either for Rhino or for Grasshopper, idk.
That’s exactly what Grasshopper is.
Only in your dreams?
you’re prob right.
I dream about 3D parametric modeling to be more intuitive, not only for myself, but mostly for my friends and family and fellow citizens of the world that don’t have nearly as much experience as I do dealing with these industries for over 20 yrs.
…guess it’s time for me to program software.
wish someone would’ve mentioned this Rhino WIP Feature: Constraints