Ideas for Scaling (Tapering) Blocks?

unhandled

#1

Can anyone think of a way to automatically control the scale of blocks, as in make each one increase in size by x, where x is controllable?

If FlowAlongSrf did the full transformation, that would be perfect. Unfortunately, the UDT tools will rotate and translate blocks, but they ignore scale. I can’t think of anything else that would work.


(Pascal Golay) #2

Hi Eric - if it is this simple - a linear array of blocks and you want to scale them by some progressive factor, a script could probably manage. Questions would arise… does the even-ness take space into consideration or just step evenly from one to the next? My guess is you want to taper in space and the scale factor would depend on the distance along the scale axis… @Jarek has some fancy tools in Armadillo, I don’t know if it does what you’re asking.

-Pascal


#3

I use Jarek’s scripts, but scripts don’t have history. I’m looking for ways to save time. My efficiency stinks in V6 and it’s hurting my business. The sad thing is there are some cool things in V6 that would save an immense amount of time, except for one little thing that renders them useless.

If _FlowAlongSrf observed scale, it would be perfect. You could control x by controlling the base/target srfs. If no one can think of a workaround, please consider it a feature request. PreserveStructure could toggle scale 3D vs scale NU (I only need 3D).


(Pascal Golay) #4

Hi Eric - is this because of Rhino itself or because a plug-in is missing?

-Pascal


#5

The loss of plugins is crippling me. There were a lot of things that TSplines and VSR did, but 95% of what I used them for would actually be faster if I had these two:


TSplines was my periodic, preserve structure option in V5. I could set up quad symmetry, flow it onto a target and maintain the control point structure. This is extremely important for the rest of the workflow.


(left: preserved structure flows cutting bar correctly, right: rebuilt isocurves are not perpendicular to edge and cutting bar leaves too much or too little space between stones)

VSR let me keep geometry light and editable while maintaining history. I’m not sure why their srf approximation did not break history while _Rebuild does, but I would rather use preserve structure and get all the new history (blend, match, etc) in V6.


(Pascal Golay) #6

Hi Eric - If a surface is an input to a History operation and Delete Input is set in Rebuild on that surface, then the History should persist - can you post an example where it does not? I imagine that can be fixed…

If the surface is output and you Rebuild it, I can see that would break history - is that the case you mean?

thanks,

-Pascal


#7

Sorry, I’m tired and it’s been a while since I was in V5. Srf approximation maintained or broke history the same as _Rebuild.

TSplines helped me maintain the structure when flowing, and VSR made it easy to fix a broken structure. Making the flow commands use preserve structure periodically solves both of those problems.

TSplines had some extra symmetry options as well. Allowing input curves to be joined would completely surpass that functionality.