my lines in this example are all over the place, how can i manipulate it to form little pyramids like in the example picture ?
things i tried that didnt work: proximity 2D, proximity 3D, delanuey connect, bullant connect poinsts.
Assuming a Surf subdiv (or using a Mesh) … for a given quad (or triangle) get the center, find the u/v coords for a pt prox to center, get the Normal (always via u/v values) - that’s unitized by default - and then multiply by some value.
So your point is: center + Normal * value.
If a W Truss (i.e. a double layred thing) is the desired output use connectivity in order to avoid dating the same girl twice (i.e. for connecting the “upper” layer pts: if this is a Mesh the FF Conn is used plus a bool [ , ] Array for the connections sampled).
Shown a solution using Faces as they are (quads AND triangles). Meaning that the triangulate option is disabled (and any further subdivision).
But as I said many times: if you are in the AEC market sector … things are not that simple (clash checks between 3d Truss members etc etc). Plus using Instance Definitions and this and that. Plus Planarity for the quads (assuming a rational envelope of some sort).
In any case a Mesh is rather way more suitable for that kind of stuff (faster [floats VS doubles] AND lot’s of exposed RC Conn Methods).
In fact dealing with this it’s not difficult at all … but the ways to “fix” - interactively/on the fly - potential clash issues (related to real-life stuff for sleeves, cones, tubes, bolts, envelope members etc etc) are way faaaaaar and beyond of what is achievable without code.
BTW: for real-life clash checks I mean this (a classic MERO TSK KK shown):
Solving all the above without Connectivity is kinda riding fast a Harley Davidson.
So in general AFTER defining a real-life System to use … you need an on the fly way to check clash, report failures and attempt to vary the nodes (if possible : otherwise go for another solution or System).
we use a finite element program for clash issues, works on mesh priniciples, clash issues we have been dealing in our company for years, its not a problem. cones nodes etc are all built in. what we are not accustomed to is “strange” systems like above.
BTW: Imagine a nurbs crv acting as a “central spine”. Then Imagine a “linear” Truss where Crv length/topology, sides, divisions, member dims, loads, cats and dogs are vars. Then Imagine secondary truss frames like fish bones (not shown) defined via a zillion params (mercy). Then Imagine tensile membrane pieces that may (or may not) occur in all the available positions. In other words: a fuzzy/ill defined %#%# situation that may - or may not - is solvable. Reds are the places where axis angles have clash issues.