FlowAlongSrf problem

unhandled

#1

Problem with FlowAlongSrf. I have a round flat design that I want to conform to a sphere. It is a jewelry pendant that I want to dome. When I do it gets stretched and wrapped around the side of the sphere. How can I make this work? I can share the file if someone can help.
I have a reference plane and a sphere and the object to be conformed.

Thanks

.


#2

You may want to use _FlowAlongSrf with history enabled, an place object on one half of the rectangle, created from extracted UV curves. This way you can scale, and move your object to fit better. But deformations are inevitable.

The other commands to explore are _Orient, and _Splop (see Rhino help).


(Pascal Golay) #3

Hi Bill - the ProjectObjects script, here-

wiki.mcneel.com/people/pascalgolay

is designed to help in cases like this - however, being a script, it is limited, and the main limit is that the bounding box of the projected objects (the circular pattern) must fit in the ‘footprint’ if the target object. In this case that means you need to extend the target - basically make a temporary object to act as a target.

ProjectObjects_TargetTooSmall.zip (319.2 KB)

-Pascal


#4

Here is a workflow for you:

You can also use unroll surface if project isn’t perfect for the result (if the shape is more complex)

Good luck


#5

Any chance that this could be made into a real command?

IMO, ProjectObjects is by far the most useful Rhino deformation tool.

-jim


(Pascal Golay) #6

Hi jim- I’d love it if that happened, I’ve lobbied once or twice for this, I’ll see if I can corner the developer…

-Pascal


Form mesh around shape
(Willem Derks) #7

Hi Bill,

Here’s another approach, by using 2 revolved surfaces you could have better control over the flow.

HTH
-Willem


#8

Please try again for V7.

Charles


(Pascal Golay) #9

So… interestingly, to me anyway, after a chat with the developer , it seems that, as hacky as it is, it may be that my scripty way of handling this is not so terrible after all. Using the UDT functions more directly would require that the target object be a smooth single surface, whereas my approximation smooths things out (at the possible expense of some ‘resolution’) when the target is a polysurface. I’m not sure where that leaves us, other than possibly to do what I’m doing in the script a little more cleanly and more behind the scenes in a command, and to try to come up with a way to make it possible to have the bounding box miss and still get a useful result. I have an idea how to do that - if that works out, I’ll try another nudge to make it a command.

https://mcneel.myjetbrains.com/youtrack/issue/RH-46400

-Pascal


#10

Pascal, I have an “idea”.

Once there were the Bonus Tools, I don’t remember when it was.
How about reviving this tool collection, with current content of course.
Like ProjectObjects etc.

And if the single bonus tool would be listed in the statistics, you would know what is useful for many people and what not.

The bonus tools could act as a kind of beta, but not only for beta testers.

What do you think?

Charles


#11

We used to have “Rhino labs”… which now simply links to Food4Rhino. So I’m thinking it should be there.