in the curve gen. I have a couple of things to take in count.
1- a base pile- a pile of sand ( mostly not compacted ( a low compact factor)) with a minimum hight of 200 mm and a maximum of 5000 mm this is used to build the forms on top.
2- a total Hight - including the base or a Hight excluding the base
3 - the base curve to build up from
4 adjustable step minimal 100 mm and max say 1000 mm
this could be build after and somehow integrated with the form gen.
I have made some changes, and completely deleted the part that splits a beam in multiple parts along the same edge (needs a different approach…)
there is an angle constraint here:
that can be disabled in case you have a sculpture with irregular polygons or edges with different angles between them
it’s working smoothly even on several levels of height:
for each side of each curve you draw, it displays these info over dimension lines (inside to outside)
plywood panel lengths for that side
total beam length for that side
level (starts with 1 and increments by 1 each step) and letter for the side (A, B, C… restarts each level)
mallen_berekenaar_new_2 .gh (131.2 KB)
speaking of shape generation, I honestly don’t know if that is the best approach, didn’t think enough about it, will do for sure in the coming days
what I mean (it’s a stupid thought, but try to follow me 
) when you draw any shape, your shortest “drawing-unit” is 610mm, and you go by multiples of that
for instance, you have drawn this nice pyramid of lines that grows smoothly:
then you put it inside the definition, and see that it doesn’t come out that nice smooth anymore:
this is not a flaw in the definition that divides the edges you have drawn, this is a consequence of having edge lengths with standard fixed increment of 610mm: at a certain point there is not enough “available definition” to smooth those steps more than that because you can just shorten/extend each side by a 610mm, not more, not less
so, for instance, if you start with an exagon that has side length equal to 3100mm and want to go up by raising the levels with smaller shapes, it does not make a lot of sense to offset them by (for instance) 700cm per step:
[edit: that 612 on the right is a 610… ]
it might be better to approach the problem knowing in advance that whatever you draw it will always be a multiple of 610, and let it raise “the way it can raise” with that given 610mm minimum increment/decrement
I’m also thinking… there were those nice drawing blocks where instead of squares you had perfect triangles, like this:
this should be a good solution to use as drawing block: each side of each triangle represents 610mm, and as long as you lines overlap an existing triangle-side then you know you are going to create a sculpture that is 100% identical in shape to what you are drawing (of course: given that you are creating always exagonal/triangular shapes…)
the steps you can achieve (for regular pyramid-like shapes) are the following depending on the number of sides:
as long as all the polygons have the same center, you will always fall into one of these cases
1 Like
Hi Inno,
I discovered a fault in the beams the way they are placed…
they always should be in between the forms.
according to you earlier commend above. it looks very good in deed. and of course you get the resolution problem… I don’t mind to place 2 forms on top of each other, but 3 is a bit to much. wat if we can adjust the step size to make the pyramid a bit less steep. would that be helping the layering?
so far I love it!!!
could this be a solution to solve the idea of resolution by adding 610 components in corners.
in general the hexagon shape remains in the big picture. I haven’t found a definition yet because I am on site in DK right now but Ill look into it as soon as I can>
at the triangular model you’ll need to ad a form anyway to fit nicely in corners!!
ohhh those beams 
now they don’t overextend vertically anymore:
added some info on top left of the drawing area:
do you need this grid-visualization for panels (and for beams, which is not there yet) despite having all the info written as text above?
mallen_berekenaar_new_3.gh (152.9 KB)
Hi Inno, Thanks so far, You did amazing work here and helping me so much.
but of course there is a thing I like to see happen, witch is creating the beams according to the panel length.
see picture. I saw in your definition (amazing) that there is a toggle made. Is this toggle to create the differed options for having those beams? if yes, it didn’t seem to work, unless I didn’t understand it quite well
yes, it should not work now, it’s completely disabled at the moment, but I will post you some -hopefully nice- results in the coming days
1 Like
the toggle is now a value list, I did what I thought was the most reasonable solution
each single beam is always extended on both sides by the value set by its slider
one single beam per edge is like it was previously: infinite long beams
max 2 or 3 shapes on each beams, I scaled the model up in such a way it’s huge:
you can read the following list as
how many sapes in an edge → [shapes under same beam] , [shapes under same beam] , …
for instance: 7 → 2,2,3 means:
in case you have 7 shapes along the same edge, you will have 3 beams ( 3 values: 2,2,3 )
the first 2 beams ( 2,2 ,3 ) will host 2 shapes each (and those shapes will for sure be 2440mm each)
the third beam will host ( 2,2 ,3 ) 3 shapes, which are for sure 2x2440 + the remaining one, whatever its length it is
1 → 1
2 → 2
3 → 3
4 → 2,2
5 → 2,3
6 → 3,3
7 → 2,2,3
…
same thing for the other option, which tries to group 3 or 4 shapes under the same beam
if you have a rule of thumb you normally use to decide how many shapes a beam joins together, just let me know 
please give this definition a hard try
mallen_berekenaar_new_4.gh (154.1 KB)
I will Thanks
hi Inno,
I was using the definition for a job I am hoping to get.
The following points need attention.
- an option to choose a beam per panel is very welcome. beside the beams are max 4800 mm long, I am sure there are longer ones but use this for now.
- when I make curves it das not show the beams in the display always. for example when I make 2440 x 1830 curves. they won’t show up!
3 . could there be a resolution option build in like I suggested earlier in this topic by adding forms of 610 and variate those to get the best distance/step?
5. a lay out for the beams like the panels lay out is handy when people need to make it
I think its going to work very good thank you so much.
looking forward
1 Like
working on solving this, together with the beams not showing up for small shapes (weird!!)
question: in case you have multiple separate shapes on the very same level (let’s say ground level)
now the definition does not handle their level correctly (because I had assumed that there would always be just one single closed shape per level): you can see that the first pile on left has the right levels 1, 2, 3 then it gets wrong for all the others which are named “level 4”
the end goal is to have each side named with a unique code, in such a way to avoid any kind of mistake
in order to code multiple shapes on the same level, I would suggest to always name the edges with progressive letters, but the letters will just continue to the next shape
for instance, let’s just ignore all the dimenions you see in the image and see my (bad) handwriting
first shape on the ground is on level 1, and its sides are named A, B, C, D
next shape on same level 1, let’s say the one on the right, its sides will be named E, F, G, H
in such a way, for each level the naming always restarts from A, but increments shape after shape, even if the shapes belong to a different polygon
ok, I just had this tought… maybe as human being it comes easier to thing about sides with numbers, and levels with letters?
should I invert the naming in such a way ground level is not level 1 but level A, and the sapes are not A, B, C, D… but 1, 2, 3, 4… ?
Hi Inno
Many thanks that you put so much time in this! I am very grateful.
Yes I’d like the layers with numbers and the sides with letters!
But don’t you get in trouble since the alfabet has only 24 character?
Or can you name them die each pile ! For example.
Pile 1: level 1 /a-b-c-d
Pile 1: level 2 / a-b-c-d
Pile 1: level 3 / a-b-c-d
Etc
Did you have any chance to think about the curves with adding a 610 form to make a layer slightly bigger?
So that the big tower have 1 step at the time or is such thing impossible?
Keep it up.
Kr Wilfred
Mob 06 10202280
Www.Stijgerart.nlWillyspheres patent pending
1 Like