Parametric Pattern on SUBD


Parametric Pattern Shoe.gh (206.5 KB)

Hello everyone, I hope you are doing good. I’m trying to apply a parametric pattern with curve attractors to a 3d printed shoe component. Unfortunately are some things not working like I would like to which is why I’m asking for help here. First, as you can see not the whole area is covert. Second, the inside pattern doesn’t match the outside pattern to there are holes at different spots that outside but I would like a straight hole through. Third, I’m only able to go from 0 to 1 for the hole but i would like holes closes to the curve be 0 and then start at 0.4-1.0 for the rest of the holes so no holes that are very small are generated. Thank you for your help!

1 Like

“covert”? Does that mean invisible?

covered?

2 Likes

no I mean covered sorry

Will you post a file? :cowboy_hat_face:

there is a grasshopper file posted with every input internalized

1 Like

Oops, failed to see that!

I’m sorry all you got is questions about your spellings :sweat_smile:

I looked at your file and checked some things.

See here:
Parametric Pattern Shoe_b.gh (209.4 KB)


I had trouble understanding this 100%. Can you please clarify what’s needed? Scaling by ‘0’ will create an error in the scale component. However, make sure you first open the edited grasshopper file to check if things are looking correct based on what you were doing.

1 Like

since your pattern is based on the mesh topology it is a problem that we already have a thickness.
the topo is different on the inside and outside. i´d suggest to make the offset later on

1 Like

How is it a problem? The issue was something else prior to thickening the mesh.

what is the goal? 2 layers of meterial or one layer?
should the pattern go through? or can it be different on the inner layer ?

Haha I think both of us have a similar question for @Till_Steinforth, but you didn’t answer mine :sweat_smile:

I did say this wrong, though, oops - the SubD was already thickened as you stated - but that wasn’t an issue.

However, I don’t say you’re wrong either ;). Yesterday I didn’t check the result thoroughly, waiting on the OP to reply.

Now I zoomed in:

For that matter, @Till_Steinforth you might want to at least get rid of the object’s thickness then go from there:

Thanks @Jakob_v_Schirmeister

1 Like

I partially edited the file following @Jakob_v_Schirmeister 's observations:
Parametric Pattern Shoe_c.gh (125.6 KB)

In addition to that is that given the use of the diagonalize component, the resulting mesh will have both triangles and quads (diamonds), so that needs to be addressed.

The result is better but the mesh isn’t perfect.

several aproaches…




patternShoe_jvs_01.gh (225.2 KB)

3 Likes

Sure!

Checked yours, nice that you took care of faces that needed ‘zero’ scaling, I meant to do the same in my attempt but skipped it.

By the way, similar to my result, the mesh is still naughty:
General information about this mesh:

Mesh has 3 extremely short edges.
Mesh has 4844 pairs of faces that intersect each other.
This can cause problems if you’re doing mesh boolean operations with it.

Mesh has 1906 faces where the face normal differs substantially from the vertex normals.
These normals can cause problems if the ultimate goal is for rendering or boolean purposes.

Mesh does not have any degenerate faces.
Mesh does not have any n-gons.
Mesh does not have any non manifold edges.
Mesh does not have any naked edges.
Mesh does not have any duplicate faces.
Mesh does not have any faces with directions different from the mesh as a whole.
Mesh does not have any disjoint pieces.
Mesh does not have any unused vertices.

ID: 09327a60-e758-496d-b4c5-e73922cbc4f8 (624)
Object name: (not named)
Layer name: Default
Render Material:
source = from layer
index = -1

Geometry:
Valid mesh.
Closed polygon mesh: 102540 vertices, 125304 faces with normals
Bounding box: (-11782,-69.9475,35.4338) to (-11503.4,31.7593,145.734)

:sad_but_relieved_face:

Mine:
General information about this mesh:

Mesh has 1 non manifold edge.
Skipping face direction check because of positive non manifold edge count.
Mesh has 765 pairs of faces that intersect each other.
This can cause problems if you’re doing mesh boolean operations with it.

Mesh has 204 faces where the face normal differs substantially from the vertex normals.
These normals can cause problems if the ultimate goal is for rendering or boolean purposes.

Mesh does not have any degenerate faces.
Mesh does not have any n-gons.
Mesh does not have any extremely short edges.
Mesh does not have any naked edges.
Mesh does not have any duplicate faces.
Mesh does not have any disjoint pieces.
Mesh does not have any unused vertices.

ID: 1c37ba48-b764-4259-945a-d6974ea3f293 (1656)
Object name: (not named)
Layer name: Default
Render Material:
source = from layer
index = -1

Geometry:
Valid mesh.
Closed double precision polygon mesh: 32108 vertices, 41270 faces with normals
Bounding box: (-11779.9,-68.1028,37.4277) to (-11505.2,29.8591,144.987)

Thank you so much for your help!

Thank you! This is super helpful!