Difficulty Creating this pattern

looking for some guidance on creating a texture. I was able to find a tutorial online that got pretty close but wasn’t quite what I was looking for (Dark gray surface)[LunchboxSrfTexture.gh|attachment]

The image below (Philips Shaver) is exactly the effect I’m trying to achieve and map onto the underside of the surface. Down to the detail of the spacing between triangles getting larger while the triangles themselves are getting smaller and creating a “dissipating” effect.

Any guidance would be much appreciated!

LunchboxSrfTexture.3dm (391.7 KB)
LunchboxSrfTexture.gh (21.5 KB)

please post the link to the tutorial you are following

Hi Geoffrey

I would first rebuild the surface so its UV its a bit more even.

Then one using the triangular grid reduce size based on distance top get a pattern that then one can apply to the material or match to the surface

Triangle Pattern_NL.gh (8.2 KB)

1 Like

For some reason the link won’t work. Here is the channel. under “Playlists” it is the " Rhino 3D Grasshopper Keyshot Webinar 4.0 | Cademy" (the logitec mouse thumbnail)


this is the “classic” approach

the extrusions do not have a bottom face but just sides and top (to save some time from the surface split thing)

the amount each triangle get extrud now is a single value for everything, but you can also map that to Distance like the scaling, in such a way to give those a specific behavior

probably rebuilding the surface first in such a way to have a better UV distribution like suggested by @n.leguina is a very valuable advice (I didn’t do that in this definition)

att.gh (211.6 KB)

This is exactly it. thank you so much! Also, great advice on rebuilding the surface @n.leguina

@inno Wondering if there is a way to add a bottom face? I am trying to create a boolean union with completed handle polysurface (not shown)

You can get the bottom surface, but I’d advice against using solid union with hundreds of tiny pieces…

this definition builds a unique surface out of all those pieces

att_Re.gh (215.6 KB)

this way you can give thickness to your original surface without triangles, make it a solid, and just at the last moment swap the surface portion of that solid without triangles with the one with triangles… don’t know if this is understandable :slight_smile:

@inno It does, somewhat :slightly_smiling_face:. I’m trying to apply it to another part of the design, but the loft seems to keep breaking and it is ignoring the surface edges on the bottom of the handle. Any thoughts as to why this is happening?

C1 Question.3dm (777.3 KB)
C1 Question.gh (24.9 KB)

the reason for this set of problems is that the new surface you are applying the definition on has holes, while the previous one did not

trims/holes are ignored by Lunchbox Triangles component, so you end up generating triangles also where they should not be

then the definition scales also triangles that should not be there

then those very same triangles are Pulled to the (this time) trimmed surface ecc etc, which breakes the Loft

so the main problem is: because Lunchbox generates triangles all over the surface, also where holes/trims are, how can we identify and somehow remove just those triangles from the list of good triangles we want operate on?

we can keep things “going normally” up to the scaling, then we need to filter triangles in such a way only good ones that fully lie over the surface continue in the definition:

one of the answers might be filtering them depending if they are still closed curves after the pulling:

as side quest, this connection also needed to be changed (and Area component was Added) because we need to calculate Surface Closest Points for normals only of the triangles that survived the Culling (previously, it was calculated for all the triangles):

C1 Answer.gh (58.9 KB)

No, I would strictly argue against this. Maybe not necessarily in this case, because your blends are not really modelled clean, but this is another topic…

The reason is that (in my experience) you almost always apply a pattern as a post-process. Meaning you already have or get a model which should not change too much anymore, because its only about applying a pattern.

If you “rebuild” the surfaces you break continuity, design intent and you build in more error than there should be.

Sure a clean model will provide you evenly distributed iso-curves, but in practise I found using the target shape UV’s for mapping impractical. You can use the UV approach, but then you need a dedicated surface for mapping slightly in offset from the original surfaces. You then need to project the triangle backs first, before extruding them. This will also remove the need for a graph mapper for compensation and will give you more control over the outcome. Because you are free to modify the helper shapes.

1 Like