I want to split free surface into many pices of triangle edges and create lattice shell.
I also want to let lattice triangle edges avoid holes.
Please tell me how to solve the problem.
shell.3dm (1.3 MB)
I want to split free surface into many pices of triangle edges and create lattice shell.
I also want to let lattice triangle edges avoid holes.
Please tell me how to solve the problem.
Hello
if you need this
You have to use a mesher. I choose Meshmachinestatic from Daniel Piker.
Thanks for the reply !
However, I still have 3 errors…
(This eroor window appears when I load grasshopper.)
(This error window appears when I try to open grasshopper document you created.)
(MeshMachine desappear.)
Please tell me what I have to do.I have no experience in using…
Well … IF this is some sort of AEC thingy here’s some advises:
NEVER attempt to do an overcomplicated LBS (Load Bearing Structure). You gonna pay a big price (design wise) and when time to do it on site arrives > mama mia.
ALWAYS separate LBS and envelope (in your case appears that you fancy irregural openings : do them on the envelope and let the LBS do the nice and clean job).
Due to 1 > using nice and clean Curves (otherwise: garbage in, garbage out) do a sweep 2, get a SINGLE surface (if Rhino reports the result as polysurface > try again). Then do a Mesh (or subdivide the Surface) and do the LBS (if facets are triangles you’ll get max rigidity).
A skin deep LBS requires a lot of material more (struts and nodes) and has (more or less) questionable seismic and thermal expansion behaviour (that’s critical). Do a W truss and use struts from Carbon Fibre (LOL) … you’ll be barely able to see the members in real-life.
Thus I would strongly suggest a concept like this one (W positive for clarity, but avoid doing that in real-life … meaning that the LBS should deploy under the envelope):
Well you have to install the components Plankton Meshmachine static … The most is to drop gha file on Grasshopper canvas.
Thank you for your affable reply.
I study more.
BTW: Less is more (I’m not talking about the amount of study).
BTW: You can obviously “skip” some LBS modules (in the proximity of envelope’s openings) but that yields kitsch results in the majority of cases. On the other hand … if the top (truss inwards) LBS layer supports some false ceiling … then do it.
BTW: Given the opportunity here’s a very expensive way to skin the cat (totally oriented towards engineering [aesthetics: just a by product]).
Imagine a tetrahedron where the apex to the base nodes are connected via struts and the base nodes are connected via cables. Imagine another (rotated) terahedron - with the same struts/cables concept - upside down where the new apex is at a point on the old tertahedron height. Connect old apex to all new base nodes (and new apex to all old base nodes) with cables and get what is known as a double tetrahedron tensegrity truss (pull via rigid members, push via cables). Do the ultra freaky thing (on a surface like the other concepts as above) that way and create openings only in the bases of the tetrahedrons (meaning: forget the shape of your openings … because the openings are just a derivant out of the whole topology). To the untrained eye a thing like this is impossible to stay in 3d space (but it does).
Shown the concept without the openings: