I originally set out to have a pattern flow along with this mesh I was provided, (keeping the pattern pieces around the same size). However after endlessly trying I can’t get Rhino/ grasshopper to recognize it as a surface for a flowalong.
After trying a bunch of different things I wanted to recreate the mesh in grasshopper if possible (the original file may change in the future so a quick import would be best). I’ve got to the point where I have split the mesh into curves (the number of which I can define), which I assumed I could loft between. However each time I try loft either in Grasshopper or in Rhino after baking the curves loft above themselves instead of between.
In summary, I’m trying to flow a pattern along with a mesh with the pattern staying reasonably the same size. I’ve attached my pattern, the mesh, and my attempt to recreate the mesh using curves. I may have gone the entirely wrong way about this so feel free to call me on it, but I’m slowly going mad trying to do this so any help would be amazing.
Hello
there are many possibilities, it would be better if you provide a sketch of what you want.
You can project the pattern on a surface without holes and then eliminate what you don’t want.
On a second solution the idea is to generate the main triangles containing the pattern. You’ll have to generate it with a mesher. There are many options
Hi Laurent Delrieu
Thanks so much for your help that’s exactly what I’m looking for. The new TriRemesh (what you are using in your example correct?) is exactly what I’m trying to do unfortunately I only have access to Rhino 6 atm, or the trial Rhino 7 so cannot run it as it requires Rhino 7.2. Remesh by Ngon and iguana seems to create an irregular mesh although a massive improvement to be working with results in the pattern pieces being vastly different sizes such as in the patternee file you attaches (may just be I do not have Trimesh. Thanks again for your help, I will try to get a newer version of Rhino in the meantime as guess there are no alternatives.
(also yes what I’ve done is incredibly inefficient sorry)
You can use MeshMachineStatic (search on this forum and grasshopper3d.com), it worked quite well but has his temper. InstantMeshes could also be used if I remember well. And surely many others tools.
Sorry, I hadn’t realised users of the trial version don’t have access to the 7.2 release candidate yet.
I think they will do soon (I need to check with the other McNeel folks), otherwise I’ll make a separate build that will work also on earlier versions.
If you are after a regular triangular mesh though, I think what Laurent suggests of projecting onto the surface without holes then removing some parts would be a good way to go.
Yet another approach to get a more topologically regular mesh (but with more size variation) would be to manually design a very simple triangulation of your surface (say <20 triangles), then subdivide and pull it onto the surface.
No worries at all, I’m happy to wait, Though would be amazing if possible as it’s exactly what I was looking for. Amazing Addition. I agree, Laurent’s got a good point, and will give it a go now. Also, that would be a good way to go about it too though I have to keep in mind the surface will continue to be updated continuously in the future so was trying to keep it as simple as possible in grasshopper ironically, however its a good option. Thanks for your help .
.