Hi,
I followed this youtube tutorial: Cosine Wave Pattern
I was able to get a similar result but I can’t make a solid from it.
The “cap” option doesn’t work for that shape
I tried adding two planes, trimming, and creating a solid but it fails to do that.
Am I missing anything?
The .gh and .3dm files are attached.
Thanks
cosin vase.gh (98.9 KB)
cosin.3dm (323.0 KB)
Hi,
First there seems to be the same bug as described here by @Quan_Li.
Exploded and re-joined the faces to correct it.
Then your caps are not planar so Cap Holes won’t work anyway. I managed to cut everything flat by cylinders without using Solid Difference, it’s a bit tedious but at least not too heavy.
cosin vase.gh (101.5 KB)
Thanks, magicteddy!
I wonder if there is a shorter/quicker way to correct it without additional grasshopper actions.
Is there a way to explode and re-join in Rhino?
shiftlist contour which i removed by cull index.
Thanks master
this was great
there is something with the my units( i am in mm not in inch)or bug in Closet point to curve and i had to replace both component with native one and it worked.
attached output to be compared still with tolerance between 0.0001 to 1 there is not different.
also i reused cosine wave output directly as curve closest point instead of using brep edge
i liked the way you hear show in background instead of .mp3,same here 
Somehow my cap is not working any idea why?
It didn’t work for me either, so I had to make some changes to the method of getting a solid closed Brep. It’s printing now but has about 11 hours to go.
Basically I scaled the original Loft by about 0.96%, whacked 5 mm off the bottom, and used that to SDIFF from the capped Brep with the cosine pattern after shaving off about 5 mm from it’s top.
well , i see that we gonna see a nice 3d printed vase beside the famous STICKY GLUE 
as a side, do you use specific Extrusion Rate formula while printing in adaptive/variable layer height?any idea on how it can be calculated precisely?
Here are the pics I’m about to post for people who want to print it themselves:
I like the overall results, but I’d like to make the cosine curve shapes more obvious so they don’t look so much like diamonds. I think I’ll use 2 methods to do this: change the shape of the cells to be more vertical (i. e., reduce the number of horizontal “rows”), and add a layer of piped cosine curves to the outside. My previous print using this approach was just the piped curves, so I know this will work:
To answer your questions: Variable layer height has been an option in PrusaSlicer for some time now. It works surprisingly well. The slicer has an option to control the amount of variability you want to use. I typically opt for a value about half way between the default one and the one for maximum/finest resolution. (There’s a simple slider control to specify this.)
Once that is done the slicing happens “automagicallly” - the different layer heights are calculated during the slicing operation based on the angle of the tangent between the current layer and the previous one. There is also a vertical graph the shows the degree of increase/decrease of layer height. It is all very well done.
The surprising thing is that using variable layer height often decreases overall print time. It seems to use thicker layers when it can, and this more than offsets the time lost printing thinner layers.
=====================================
Nothing beats a quick fix:
it is awesome 
i think less quantity of cosine wave same as the one made by Quan Li will result better after print.
Great thanks to both @Quan_Li and @saeed_hasan_zadeh for sharing their definitions!
nice result,love the triple glass window too . 
just to mention you may wanna write on the package , use low heat lamp since it may be melted with old tangs-tan lamp.
@Birk_Binnard @Bruce_Shapiro @JesterWest
Hello! Does anybody have an interest in challenging this shape with FDM?
It looks like you are getting the “ghosting” effect on your prints. Have you cleaned / lubricated your guide rails? I think this can help minimise the ghosting effect.
I would try and rotate the pattern by 45 degrees to minimise the amount of overhanging sections where the struts are horizontal.
That is very good idea!
That is an awesome definition by the way! Thanks for sharing!
