Just tried out the Sasquatch OffsetSrf component and it did seem to work pretty well. I put a few RhinoPolyhedra objects, minus one face, through it, and got good results.
But then I tried it with the polysurface that inspired this thread. (Thread is about creating compound miters in Rhino, and having Shell and OffsetSrf both fail. But if I could draw it manually, shouldn’t we be able to get Grasshopper to do it automatically?)
Anyhow, I took the object that broke Rhino OffsetSrf and Shell and plugged it into Sasquatch OffsetSrf aaaaaand… it broke:
Here’s the definition, with previews that highlight edges and naked edges for clarity: Sasquatch Offset Srf Fail.gh (27.5 KB)
What’s weirdest to me here is that if I move the offset distance slider around, I get a variety of different failures. Sometimes the result disappears entirely.
Questions:
Is there something about polysrfs with both convex and concave edges that is special and creates problems for offsets?
Do convex and concave edges that share vertices make it especially tricky?
Rhino’s dreadful habit to make single surfaces from polylines with tangent curves requires a remedy.
In Rhino, it’s ill-named “Divide along creases” with the “Split at tangents” option.
To my knowledge, there is no equivalent in Grasshopper.
I will keep reminding you to speak for yourself because it pissing me seriously off.
Creating single surface from polyline with tangency is something I absolutely love.
I see in R6 there is now a SplitAtTangents option that didn’t exist in R5 Rhinocommon. I’ll update it when I stop supporting R5. Currently my component just splits at untrimmed surfaces creases. Thanks for checking.
I always speak for myself of course.
If that pisses you off , you might want to not read forums
I’m curious though… what’s so lovable about “flat-and-curvy-at-the-same-time” surfaces ?
You don’t speak for yourself. You create general messages with ‘I’ never existing , pretending you speak for everyone.
The reason I (mark my word) like the simple surfaces is the way they are displayed which is important with highly complex models I (again) often deal with.
I am absolutely aware of and often use it.
To me this is more the case of a language used in this discussion rather than software ‘do’s and don’ts’. I don’t like whining.
I am currently working on a 1.6GB model on a laptop, and I don’t have any serious display issues.
For all my disappointment with Rhino 6, I have to say : at least display performance has become much closer to what one can expect at this day and age.
Oh… but wait… maybe you’re still using Rhino 5 ? I strongly recommend the upgrade in your case.
My issue with having no splits at tangents is that it makes for very bad face editing and solid modeling.
That’s the reason why these types of surfaces don’t exist in parametric modelers, and that, when exported to STEP, they are automatically split.
I’m curious as to what kind of “Highly complex” models you do, and how you manage to process these “both flat and curvy” surfaces for fabrication purposes (if fabrication is involved).
I didn’t mention any display issues. RH6 and WiP here.
I find it very usefeul having single surface when tangency occur. It visually simplifies the model and reassure me at the same time that things are modelled correctly.
I’m surprised by what you say here because these surface tend to be meshed in a particularly horrendous way, and are visually unsettling in a shaded display.