I would like assistance with a Grasshopper development or functionality to divide a BREP into equal areas (preferably rectangles) using both transverse and longitudinal cutting lines along the BREP’s longest side.
Hello @Lucas_Machado , do you mean generally equal area distribution or exact?
Since the surfaces have varying curvature, the surface area will differ (potentially greatly) based on the amount of surface deviation from “flatness”.
That being said if you just want to control the over “panelization” of this surface I’ll share a script for that in just a moment.
To be honest, exact area matching isn’t necessary, as long as the cutting lines are regular and equally spaced. The longitudinal and transverse lines would need to be parallel.
Thank you very much for the help @michaelvollrath . I believe this dimensionalization with approximate areas is what I was looking for.
One more question: would it be possible to make the division lines regular (parallel to the base)? It’s not a problem if this slightly changes the areas of each division, but it might open up new possibilities
I wonder if the mesh could be used instead, and skip the step of converting into a poly for that sake of having a brep.
Or if that’s an advantageous step in the workflow then that’s interesting, but very time-calculation extensive.
Obviously it’s common to want NURBS from mesh, but I’m just wondering if the original mesh could be converted differently, so that the polysrf of countless triangles can be avoided in the workflow.
Of course if there’s an advantage to it, then we’d have to condone the extensive CPU calculation routines.
Although, if not then this file could be lightened up by just using the mesh instead – upfront, maybe.
I see, I thought it was Reverse Engineering but since you said that right before RE I thought, surely he can’t be saying RE twice but that makes sense.
Yes I had that thought as well though I didn’t express it. Ideally the original surface could be a single surface from the original insanitation but not sure what the “original” geometry creation looks like @Lucas_Machado ?
yeah I had to say something cause my ol’ laptop is coughing on them 28,401 surfaces
imo, it would be neater if it was a mesh and then converted to brep via sub-D or something, then to NURBS
I still need to study these files, but I surmise the objective to be, to constrain a more consistent uniform matrix of rectangular surface extraction from the original mesh, which is very interesting
That GH file very complicated not sure I’ll ever understand it, but very interesting.
I recommend toggling “Only draw preview geometry for selected objects” and then select one node at a time from left to right and visualize what each step is doing.