Hi @Baris
I mean, the point is not the gnawed edges. I’ve already found a solution to remodel in the final smooth shape, with the Tspline plugin for Rhino. (I thought about this because I wanted to stay in the rhinoceros environment)
The point is that I would like to have more control over the creation of the form. I would like the end result to be a middle ground between a form that I thought of and a form that the machine created. Look back a little at the workflow used to design this chair.
The objective is to do something similar for a structure.
Let’s imagine having for example 2 floors at different heights and a flight of stairs connecting them; I want to create the support structures that support them.
The typical structure would be a beam-pillar system.
The point is here: I want to create a structure that has the same function, but with an alternative shape and better performance. To do this we’ll use topological optimization.
Going further, that is where I have the first doubt in particular…
In your opinion, Is it more correct to think of a single volume as design space (thought of as a huge pillar-beam) or to think of different detached elements?
In the first way, the program is left to create the form, which is completely arbitrary and unexpected.
While in the second one has more control but the program has little to do as the shape remains within the detached elements manually modeled, so the workflow becomes more strictly ‘engineering’ and less design.
Final question: how to get a middle way??