It seems not clear to me if you want hexagon, nets, quad … here a solution with some ngons
Seek for MeshDual.gha in this page
And use MeshMachine to triangulate
honey not honey.gh (305.2 KB)
@laurent_delrieu oh yess!! thats exactly what i wanted…thank you so much
God bless!
this is cool…though how do i extract the hexagonal shape geometry? i want the structure please help again… i tried baking but its getting complex
I don’t understand. Baking is the way to do. You want mesh polyline … Give a sketch of what you want.
photo is after baked…
is it possible to have only hexagonal grid on the surface so that later i can use the grid structure for later use
something like this
Mesh edges will give you the curves you need.
Try to explore the definition. If you don’t understand begin by reading Grasshopper primers. Explore the interface of the tools the functions …
thanks alot for the advice
You know, although I do not agree with @intexlann to request someone to do the job for him. I’m also not a fan of using closed custom plugins. There’s got to be a way to implement this with OOTB + scripting components.
Still, I could not find a way to map the hex across multiple surfaces, issues always happen where surfaces connect.
Why does all mapping components require a surface and not a brep (polysurface)?
OOTB + scripting components.
You know OOTB components and plug-ins are literally the same thing right? I mean they are made in the same way, same visual studio template, same SDK. In fact Mcneel made GH so easy to make plug-ins for because it is just not possible for them to cover everything, so the community fills in. Scripting components are worse, they are a bit slower than plug-in compiled components, more buggy, and more limited in what they can access. They are usually just used to make a quick thing here and there but def not recommended for serious things like this ngon stuff (especially because the script components intellisense is basically non-existent).
Even the OOTB components are the same type of .gha file as seen here:
So why not use the tools available to make life easy?
Still, I could not find a way to map the hex across multiple surfaces, issues always happen where surfaces connect.
That’s how nurbs work and are able to be evaluated, it is not a Rhino exclusive issue. That is why many use mesh for those shapes. Unfortunately, Rhino has just implemented SubD’s / NGons and GH has not caught up with it yet, however the community has and that’s why I suggest the NGon plug-in (which again uses the same library GH would use anyway if they made those components as OOTB)
As I was not on my PC it was not possible to explain more.
The tool (Grasshopper) has many options, they are useful. For a new learner I recommand following a definition and looking what the components are doing.
For example use a panel to see the output.
You asked for polylines thes were on the file ! So you asked because you didn’t know or … I prefer not to think of this option.
The other button the green one preview just selected components. If no geometry no components. Here also you see the polylines.
Not even close!
OOTB is whatever is created from McNeel that ships along with the software. (why kangaroo is shipped along with RH is not really clear to me, perhaps due to popular demand). Anything developed by others even if they are using the same api is not OOTB.
Who is arguing about that. The best way to assure a steady evolution of a software is to let the enthusiasts to contribute.
Weird community you have here. Everyone jumps in the rumble defending themselves without even being offended in any way or defending others despite no one requesting their support in the “fight”
You’re a developer so you feel obligated to argue with me. Develop your plugin, I’m sure it’s great and people will use it. Me personally, I’d prefer to know how a certain thing works, so I can improve them if I can. If it’s closed no one can improve it, hence no evolution. It’s a philosophical question, really. If something is distributed as free, I say make it open source. This is how Blender, Python, Linux evolved to something irreplaceable. This is how Mathematics and Physics, Science in general got us to here. Sharing. Let’s not forget cycles as well!
That is a matter of enhancement by McNeel. For sure scripting gives access to much more people than compiled plugins to contribute and widen RH+GH usage in different industries. Python is more understandable by non-programmer than C#. It is much easier to learn scripting than writing applications and “worrying” about assemblies and links and what not.
This is irrelevant to the term OOTB. (idiomatic, of a product) Immediate(ly), without intervention from the customer.
A matter of personal preference.
Where did I say it’s Rhino issue? I merely said I’m struggling with it.
Meshes change the properties of the original surface/polysurface. In some fields using meshes is taboo.
I doubt that cannot be done using GhPython or the C#_scripting component. Let people use plugins, I would like to figure out how to do it. Then I’m gonna share it, because it’s right.
Because
“Science knows no country, because knowledge belongs to humanity, and is the torch which illuminates the world. Science is the highest personification of the nation because that nation will remain the first which carries the furthest the works of thought and intelligence.”
Louis Pasteur
okay
can u please attach the gh script?
I change nothing except that I add a panel at the output of dual’mesh.
