Hi everyone,
I just started using Kangaroo so my question might be obvious. I have mostly a working definition but I would like to add one more goal to avoid the result “folding on itself” (see picture attached).
I assumed I should use the Hinge goal but I still have some tiny folds.
- Is hinge the proper tool for it or is there another one?
- Do I still have a fold because of the relative weight of my goals?
- How to make sure that I will have no folds but still allow relative movement between my faces?
Thanks for your answers!
Kangaroo fold on itself.gh (85.6 KB)
There’s an IGoal for the “no self fold” task available (but I can’t recall the K2 component name).
Great!! Thanks a lot for your quick answer! it is going to be useful!
Unfortunately, I still have a fold that Isn´t taken into account by the “no fold through” because the faces are not passing through each other due to my surface curvature: my faces are overlapping without intersecting.
There is probably a problem with my naked edges conditions which leads to this issue (they are forced to get a certain length). I need to either exclude some of the naked edges of my Length condition or override that condition by a “hinge range” component.
Is there a way to define a range of acceptable angle for hinges (ie 90%-110% of the original angle)?
Have in mind that if you run a PS like K2 against a crap/invalid/non manifold etc etc mesh (and/or a collection of “wrong” points etc etc) … chances are that you’ll get a crap result. Same for your goals. PS is kinda martial Arts: finesse and not brute force is the secret.
Have in mind that hinges are defined via classic mesh connectivity … meaning that an invalid mesh (and/or a mesh that yields faulty connectivity data) could yield bananas IGoals.
Other than that the good news are that you can do anything imaginable including a vast variety of checks with regard the mesh (is it valid? and if not why? etc etc) … but … er … in my case I work solely via code: this is either Nirvana (you know how to code) or Hell (you don’t).
In the Image captured above (the “big” C#) everything is controlled and since the K2 runs via a Method (in user defined loops, threshold values blah, blah) it’s easy to mastermind an “auto-tune” loop for better approximating the desired results. Obviously bending using hinges is a fine ballance between hinge related stuff, plastic anchors stuff and spring related stuff. Not using negative bending in some (clothed) edges makes things … worse.
So … here’s the deal: if no good Samaritan could provide a solution with K2 242 components I could post here a 100% C# driven def … but the benefit could be highly questionable if you are not familiar with code matters.
BTW: Imagine a clothed edge in a tri mesh. Has 2 vertices that define the start, end hinge pts. The edge has 2 neighbor faces that yield 2 Lists of face vertices (3) : The 2 non common vertices define the tips t1/2 for the hinge. Leaving aside critical things like what is the positive/negative orientation (so for a given edge with a given direction what is the t1/2 sampling rule? [the C# captured is using a Cross/DotProduct check for that] etc etc) … it’s questionable what the hinge tips may be in a quad mesh.
Okay, you have a good point here, I probably have some work to do on cleaning a bit my input mesh.
Regarding the C#, I know some basics but definitely not enough to write a procedure or understand it in a decent amount of time. Should probably spend some spare time on it at some point!
I think this folding problem is not worth spending some time building a labyrinthine system for the application I have for that mesh (It is not the final product of my definition, just a step, where minor folds can be acceptable).
Thanks for taking the time to give me detailed answers!
