Command: _FlowAlongSrf

Hi there.

I’m using Rhino 5 SR7 (5.7.31213.18395, 2013-12-13)

When I used FlowAlongSrf with patched surface, it is crashing.
Do you know the reason? (84.2 KB)

is it actually crashing or just appearing to hang? (if you have some sort of activity monitor on your system, look at it while attempting the transformation… you’ll probably have one cpu core maxing out)…

that’s an awful lot you’re asking for with this and it’s going to take a long time to calculate (and probably have an incredibly laggy model once it completes)… i’m going for coffee soon… i’ll try a 5x5 grid of the modules flowed on surface and report back on whether or not it finishes by then

so it finished at some point under 40minutes (on a laptop with 2.66GHz clock)
i tried to orbit and it got stuck in this weird looking openGL(?) glitch and i didn’t have the patience to wait for it to come back so i screenshot it then quit the application.

if you want faster results (nearly instant in this scenario), run the command ExtractRenderMesh then flow that mesh along the surface.

Hi Knead,

This doesn’t crash Rhino 5 here but you may be running out of RAM when generating the render meshes which I could reproduce on a small laptop. It does take a long time to flow though due to the density of the patch surface along the edge where I assume you also drew your base plane. If you make a base plane about twice as large it flows quickly. If you could model the interior form with a lighter density patch and then have a base surface larger than the dimensions of the part this will help. However, the result is still very dense due. Perhaps a Grasshopper surface morph which uses a reference box instead of a surface is what you’re after? It would allow for height and array number to be changed later but you’ll still have to wait a while. Here’s the 3dm with a simpler patch and wider base surface and a GH definition to show surface morph.

FlowAlongSrf_Rhino_V5_edit.3dm (350.0 KB) (13.9 KB)

The result is not very good.
What happened?

Thanks alot for the help.

it’s just that it’s not a good method for getting the actual geometry is all… you could try a finer mesh but i doubt that’s going to help much either.

it’s good for a preview though prior to committing with nurbs surfaces.

Thank you!