I have some meshes that are not solid for 3d printing. I am looking at at ways to cap back and bottom of the mesh so the mesh has solid volume for printing.
What is the best way to achieve this?
Current workflow is to convert the mesh to Nurbs.
Create a surfaces for the back and bottom.
Trim out the surfaces for the back and bottom.
Join all the surfaces.
Convert back to Mesh
Quad remesh and done.
This has been the most reliable way to create a good final mesh, but I feel that there is a easier way or a command that would simplify this workflow. How would you do this. Meshes are a new thing for me, so I’m not too much on the tools that might be helpful.
Attached is an image of an example of one of my meshes.
If that is a mesh, it might be possible to duplicate the bottom edge (makes a polyline), add a line segment to close the curve (or use CloseCrv) and then use MeshPolyline on the closed polyline to create a mesh. Join that to the main part, then try FillMeshHole on the open edge. Without a file it’s difficult to know.
Definitely looks like you’re on the right track. Of course it’s all relative to design intent and desired outcome, etc.
Rhino still has a ways to go in form of growth in the direction of direct mesh tools etc., but the new sub-d stuff and remeshing has changed the game tremendously.
When I’m working with meshes for printing, for example, a workflow I like to use is where I mostly work in Sub-D’s and will go into a mesh as a final result. During the flow, I might use polysrf’s a few times, but the goal of course is to get to mesh in the end, and sub-D remeshing etc. add’s a really nice compatibility for that.
There are occasions where I will go from sub-D into a polysrf, then from polysrf into mesh, but it ultimately depends how your want the mesh composed.
I think there’s probably lots of stuff you can do with Grasshopper too in the regard of this composure.
Otherwise, you’ll need other mesher programs, depending on the extent of where you want the meshes to go in terms of composition.
But GH is pretty much able to solve every problem I’ve ever seen, soo…
@Helvetosaur The Image i posted is one of the simple meshes. I’ll upload one of the more challenging meshes. I’d love to hear how you would tackle it.
@lander Yes, the remsher tool is invaluable. SubD is a good approach. Meshes are just fussy, hard to manage beasts. Keeping it until the last step is ideal. Grasshopper scares the hell out of me. I knows it a great magical tool, but I’ve never took the time to learn it. Keeping a polysurface and Sudb in rhino is where I feel most comfortable. That is why I went down the path did because it what I know.
There are a lot of ways to accomplish this with the same result. Is just nice to have a second opinion to what others would to solve the same problem. I tend to overthink things and make thing more complicated. In rhino there always a command that I didn’t think to use. Nice to have a great community to gather better ideas and workflows.
i’ve been trying to find a thread on the GH mesh thing I saw recently. When I find it I’ll link it.
I think a key word is ‘Delaunay’…
I’m glad @theoutside mentioned ‘shrinkwrap’ another awesome tool so amazing!
Found it
This thread so awesome!:
!
An interesting post in that thread:
I still have lots to learn about the grasshopper approach but I think it’s got tremendous potential with mesh work – from what I’ve seen in this forum, compared to what I’ve done in other reverse engineering type programs.
This is all fantastic information. It’s great to see everybody’s approach. Great stuff indeed. I have learned a thing or two exploring each technique.
Thank you to all that have shared their technique!
another awesome tool so amazing! 
