Hello!
I am currently using Rhino for surfacemodelling in combination with inventor to add “engineering” details and prepare the model for manufacturing. But when for example geometrical constraints change, I am forced to build up the Rhino surfaces again. History helps out sometimes, but especially on complexer surface models it is not reliable.
This is why I am now trying to get in touch with grasshopper to simulate a parametric surface modelling, as I know it for example from solidworks surface modelling. Means I don’t need grasshopper for patterns or things like that for a specific function, but for the option to update the whole surface model when I for example adjust a determining curve if the engineering restrictions for the surface model have changed.
Youtube is full of grasshopper examples used for patterns or sequential adapted structures etc. but I did not found examples of a build up of a complete product.
Am I wrong with my intent to use grasshopper as a kind of parametric mechanical engineering with Rhino?
Can you help me with a link to a video / tutorial / course etc. with this purpose?
Thx!
Hello Fabian,
Maybe posting a 3dm file with an example surface you’d like to parameterize would help us determine is it is possible or not - I’m rather confident it is.
A lot of surfacic commands, like Loft or Sweep are available in Grasshopper.
Trying to just DIY your own knockoff Solidworks is an absurd terrible idea, unless it’s for a very narrow specific workflow that you understand perfectly.
… to make it more clear I uploaded a screeshot of a current project for which I used Rhino at the beginning because of its surface modelling possibilities. You see some early surfaces (rails, lofts,…) of a later hood which refers to the red circles, which the hood has to cover. Imagine for example the position of one of this circes changes, I would need to build up all the surfaces again. A time consuming procedure, which I currently “speed up” by strictly saving all curves, trimsurfaces, intermediate results in a bunch of layers to be able to go back stepwise and use these as references again.
Is it really absurd to think of solving this by a “parametric” process with GH? To be honest, it would not be far away from building up a “Solidworks imitation”…
If you have a Rhino process that you can clearly describe, doing with with GH is usually possible.
Some insights below… The real geometry is simplified for this little improvisation. Can’t really do more if you don’t provide real data to work on.
Hood.gh (25.2 KB)
If you need to design dozens of items that are exactly like that except for some size parameters, sure. But I doubt that’s what you’re talking about. Of course there are probably a number of things to do to improve your modeling to be easier to change before worrying about automation.
Impressiv magicteddy! Exactly this is what I was searching for!
So you would say it is actually possible to “imitate a parametric software” - assuming the appropriate ability?
Which way do you choose, if you work on a model with not yet fixed boudary conditions - start “modeling” in GH right from the beginning, or accept to build it up several times?
And which thoughts lead to the decision?
Thank you for your generous support! It helps me a lot.
I would say it is a balance between your skills (parametric reasoning and/or coding), the size of the project and the number of times you think you’ll have to modify it, at least partially.
I personaly have a very (very very) low tolerance for the latter criteria, so I almost exclusively use GH from scratch, but be aware this is not the answer you’ll get from the majority of users here.