Hello everyone!
I’m trying to project some arabic text onto a surface i have made, however, nothing I do seems to be working, I have attached both the rhino and grasshopper file for reference. and i will also attach a screenshot what it should be similar too. I would appreciate any help I can get on this, thank you!
I don’t know how you determined these slider values? By eye? Really hard to believe that “donut shaped building” is a fair surface when analyzed?
I’d like to suggest a parametric way of getting a very similar surface:
The cyan group is copied from your GH file, as are the sliders in the purple group. The Value List (blue group) offers a way to switch between the two.
I don’t know why this ellipsoid shape fascinates me… I did two more variations of the shape, analyzing surface curvature in all four cases contained in one GH file.
ellipsoid_2024Oct20c.gh (39.5 KB) (UPDATED!)
Versions are right to left (Original to V.Sweep)
Again, V.Sweep is best (orange group, on the left in the curvature analysis image)
P.S. I found a mistake in version V.3 (gray group) where changing the PFrames count did not update Range. Unfortunately, reducing the count doesn’t help, it’s still the worst version. Replaced GH file version ‘b’ with version ‘c’.
Hi Quan, although this is closer to what i am looking for, it’s not exactly the same, I want the sides (which is where i am having the most issue) to go around so it’s more on the x axis (if you are considering that the shape is the plane). Thank you!
this is great! i tried to make it the that i had done because majority of the building needs to be parametric and I figured the way i had done it would be simplest
this is awesome, thank you, can i ask why you think version sweep is the best? from the looks of it, I think the original is the best.
Version ‘V.Sweep’ uses two ellipses as rails and two ellipses as sections. It’s more precise.
This image shows the rails of ‘V.Sweep’ in green and your ‘Original’ in red. Look very carefully.
This image shows ‘V.Sweep’ on the left and your ‘Original’ on the right. (parallel view)
Even if you don’t see differences (and I do), because of how they are constructed, it’s just impossible for your ‘Original’ to be as fair as ‘V.Sweep’.
P.S. The R7 Rhino file I posted has one layer locked by accident. Unlock it.
In Rhino, use ‘Analyze | Surface | Curvature Analysis’ or ‘Analyze | Surface | Zebra’ to see how fair each version is.
P.P.S. This version ‘d’ contains only ‘V.Sweep’ and your ‘Original’.
Unless pressed, I can’t readily explain the ‘nudge’ slider (yellow group)? 
This bothered me - I knew the model wasn’t fully parametric with a ‘nudge’ (fudge) slider.
It took awhile 
but was simple to fix, once I fully understood the geometry. This image shows the ellipse and its center point/plane (in green) created by the cyan group:
The ‘nudge’ slider value was: (117 - 40) / 2 = 38.5
that makes sense, i thought the v. sweep was my original version in the first post, my bad, thank you for explaining!
Considering how your original shape was created, it was remarkably fair. But experience designing boat hulls told me that there are too many “offset” values to be truly fair.
By the way, the ‘Radius 2’ slider in the cyan group is replaced by two ‘Radius 2’ sliders in the orange group, one for the outer rail and one for the inner rail.
