2 Likes
If you use the Zombie solver, you can combine Kangaroo with other looping plugins such as Anemone
3 Likes
I think I have to do the following with Kangeroo. However, when I tried the mesh sheet did not largely flat. So, I tried it in a different way.
I am trying to connect the mesh sheets to the tubes in order to let things flow smoothly.
problem loophole 05.gh (124.0 KB) !
I could not work out the one below because I had difficulties with the opening on top of the mesh tube.
Now I use intersecting tubes.
I cannot smoothly transit mesh sheets to the tubes.
Hi @ForestOwl,
Hm, maybe your lower mesh plane has not enough subdivisions to find a smooth connection to the tubular mesh?
I see three meshes (per ‘model’) in your document. Am I right in the assumption that you first try to attract the individual meshes to one-another, to create smoother transitions between them, and then you want to strategically cut holes into them - where the individual meshes meet/intersect -, and weld the meshes to a single mesh?
If so, I believe that this is rather difficult (impossible?) to achieve, and here’s why:
Simply imagine you have two meshes with distinct topologies that intersect in a certain region. Now you go ahead and cut a hole in both meshes - where they intersect -, by removing mesh faces. Since the mesh topology is not exactly the same, the vertex counts of the naked edges of the holes will probably differ, and this makes it hard to get a clean connection. Ideally you would want to weld each individual vertex from one mesh to a unique vertex of the second mesh, but if the number of vertices don’t match, this is not possible. You’d have to weld multiple vertices together, producing a rather unclean mesh with an unsanitary edge flow.
A consequence would be that further smoothing or thickening would produce weird results, or even be problematic.
Since, you really don’t want to go the straightforward route of polymodelling this, what you could do is make a simply mesh model (like discussed above) that already has all the connections and is a clean, welded mesh with equally sized quads/tris.
Then you could relax the mesh (e.g. Kangaroo2) and deform it with curve and/or point attractors. These attractors could be parametrically places in strategic places. This basically mimic polymodelling in a parametrical fashion. To be honest, it is rather hard to say, if the result of this will be appropriate for Stuart-Smith-ing your geometry!
1 Like
I cannot judge it correctly. Do you think that this is a workable mesh which I can relax?
Or are there other strings attached to this which could create a problem?
Do you think that this is a workable mesh which I can relax?
Not with those faces, you need more faces and better topology.
1 Like
Generally, speaking a clean mesh topology/tessellation is exclusively based on quads (or tris). Intermixing both usually creates edge/face flow problems, but is necessary in some cases (e.g. mesh cylinder, mesh sphere).
Depending on what you want to achieve, your mesh faces should all have roughly the same size/area and be evenly spaced. They shouldn’t be stretched, intersecting, or overlapping!
A neat edge flow guarantees that you can subdivide your model further, without running into problems. Your quad faces can be triangulated, while maintaining a clean edge flow.
The creation of n-gons, mesh faces with more than 4 vertices, should be avoided for various reasons.
First and foremost, n-gons need special treatment to divide them into tris or subdivide them. Quads can simply be split in half to produce two triangles that you can perform for instance Pythagorean calculations on, or subdivided into four sub quads.
Generally speaking, a mesh is best, when it is considered watertight, meaning that it’s not a surface, but a volume/solid. It basically has no naked vertices! This doesn’t mean that you need to start with a volume, but you should always keep it as an end goal in mind.
In your case, I would imagine that you would want to produce a watertight mesh towards the end of your design process, when you already have a clean mesh surface that simply could be extrude/thickened to get a wall thickness.
However, to even achieve this properly, you need to be careful when modelling the mesh surface in the first place.
Furthermore, all sorts of evaluations, deformations, and simulations (i.e. Kangaroo simulation) of the mesh also profit from an even, clean mesh tessellation. I mean your previous problem with attracting both meshes to each-other was primarily caused by the meshes having differently subdivided tessellation.
@Michael_Pryor, is right. Your current mesh is a bad one, not only because it has 7 pairs of intersecting faces, but the tessellation is a mess. Quads and tris are intermixed, faces wildly vary in sizes and are stretched…
I guess you have to strategies more on how you want to construct your mesh. Don’t think about it in a boolean fashion, where you just clash things together. Try to envision how the mesh emerges from two simple mesh planes. Start simple, gradually do transformations…
1 Like