Point Cloud building site to mesh

We are talking tons here I’m afraid.

Here’s why:

  1. For some real-life cases percentage (say: 10% max) …the attached could(?) be the Jack of all trades but ONLY if the Polyline offset could work. OK … holes are needed as well … but that’s trivial to implement. In fact … there’s some other things involved but we are talking 100% internal stuff (not to mention that R/GH are not the apps to use for things like these: like multi leveled excavations related with seismic activity, separations, local regulations, soil stabilization, passive underground heat exchangers and the likes).
  2. As I said I can’t post my offset … so I added various checks that (in case of failure) inform you the reason. Plus I added some post Rhino offset stuff (get rid of colinear vertices).
  3. See the second demo case included that works only with very steep (and highly unrealistic) slope angles due to that crap Rhino offset thingy.
  4. 3 modes are available: (1) preview [tool + patched], (2) trimmed patched and (3) the tapered solid.

Excavations_FromPatchedPointsAndBoundaryAndKarma_V1A.gh (157.8 KB)

Preview:

Out of Karma:

Trimmed patched:

Tapered (NOT via Rhino taper) solid:

Crap matters (2nd demo - NOTE: test the yellow poly [boundary] and the GH offset using the value reported [on info panel] and enjoy the chaos) ):

Unrealistic taperSlope (in order to allow R offset to work) :

Maybe I can replace the crap stuff with a “detuned” version of one of my internal offset thingies (but that’s not a promise by any means) : that could transform the useless into something … er … less useless.

On the other hand in most of real-life cases with topo/soil restrictions we do this:

Best

1 Like

It looks awesome, thanks for that !!. Next week I will study the model in detail. I’ll let you know

I studied your model in more detail and came up with some questions:

  • The original points (according to RD Paris) do not work with your model and I cant figure out why.
  • Is it true that the transBoundary is reffered from a planer plane or point at the maximum Z value?
  • Isn’t it more logic to calculate the taperslope related to the boundaryOffset (so bottom level as basepoint) because with a negative boundaryOffset the angle becomes incorrect.
  • What do you advise in order to retrieve a color mapping in order to verify the “roughness” of the terrain (point cloud)?

Best!

Well …

  1. OEM RD Paris points havoc: maybe is a mesh accuracy issue or doc tol (or Karma). The tapered excavation tool is at first made as a mesh.
  2. trans(late)Boundary: means get the planar closed boundary placed at Plane.WorldXY and move it to the desired max excavation depth (-Z);
  3. the offset is (or should be) always outwards (inwards make no sense at all). Let me know if you get reverse results (and if is the case I’ll fix that ASAP: is just a matter of some questions related with the orientation of the boundary). This means that the trans(lated)Boundary gives us 2 polylines (if the offset works, that is): the bottom with some free work space and the top (at max point Z + some margin). Then by bridging these 2 we get the tapered excavaion tool (at first as mesh).
  4. I have a C# that does that (but I’m not in the practice right now > I’ll be back Monday).