Release of EvoluteTools T.MAP *beta*



Yes or even better some boundaries.
Assume a glass grid shell, for the width of the panels you should not use values >2.5 m (fabrication issues), whereas you do not want it to drop smaller than 0.5 m for most parts of the structure.

As said previously one direction should be <2.5 m but the other one could easily be up to 6 m. Therefore a ratio and/or boundaries would be nice to have.
Of course these boundaries can only be soft bounds for not limiting the solver too much, but knowing about a soft bound it would still bring you closer to the desired mesh.

Here is another question on the planarity of the quad mesh.
I tried with your testsample (fertility.3dm) but always got the message "Mesh consists of several connected components… _weld …) . Not being able to fix it on your test model I came up with a torus to testdrive T.MAP.
While choosing DirectionNoBoundaries to None/Curvature resulted in the obviously plane quad mesh. Trying the Curves option after drawing a partial helix on the torus surface in combination with a small number of levelsets resulted in heavily warped quads which is understandable,

The question is whether it would be a good idea to have a planarization boundary, so that you have a chance to weigh the importance of planarization.

By the way, will you come up with a floating licence on T.MAP as well?
We are thinking about buying the evolute PRO and T.MAP but only if we can have floating licences for all software parts.

(Mathias Höbinger) #63


This is possible and we could implement it pretty quickly, but it is limited to certain types of patterns. If you have no singularities, you can of course scale distances for the two directions independently. If there are singularities you can typically only make the pattern denser without destroying the mesh structure, and whether you can do this independently for the two directions or only for both at once depends on the type of the singularities (let me know if you want us to elaborate on this).
Anyways, we think it is a great suggestion and we’ll definitely work on it once we get the plugin to the stable state.

Exactly. Now there’s several options one could use to enforce these bounds once the parametrization is done.

If one of the bounds is violated almost everywhere you might need to change the ideal value and parametrize again (there’s even ways to do this without recomputing the whole thing in many cases). This iteration could also be done automatically until the bounds are met, we will think about this.

If you like the output but have problems in some specific areas, you could extract a mesh and use some local subdivision methods followed by a relaxation, both of which are in EvoluteTools PRO (or even LITE).

Enforcing or even optimizing for planarity directly is not something that the T.MAP algorithm is designed for. However, as you observed yourself, if you set the pattern to follow the mesh curvature you will generally get the best results in that respect. Such a T.MAP output mesh would then be ideally suited to optimize for planarity using EvoluteTools PRO. There, you can easily observe the planarity measure and optimize until a given bound is met.

Yes, this option should be visible in our web shop within the next few hours.

We would of course be very happy if you’d decide to use our tools! Please let us know if there’s anything else we can help you with.

(Alexander Schiftner) #65

Many thanks for pointing us to the problem with the example fertility.3dm downloadable from our website. It has been fixed in the meanwhile, please download it again. Moreover we added a link to a publicly available benchmark model database, which is useful for experimenting with T.MAP:

Fertility example
Benchmark models (obj files, 500mb)

(Alexander Schiftner) #66

We have identified this problem and solved it. An update to T.MAP will be released within a week. Registered beta users will automatically receive an email containing a download link.


We are currently preparing a series of video tutorials about T.MAP. The first episode is already recorded, watch it here:

Following episodes will cover boundary treatment and general good practice about the plug-in.

(Alexander Schiftner) #68

We released an update to T.MAP, fixing the problems @s2419 mentioned regarding toolbar and shutdown as well as now supporting polysurfaces as input. Existing users will receive a download link on next use, new users please download from


I’m currently testing you eval demo of T-MAP pluggin, and I wanted to make a quad mesh on a symple curvated cylinder to test the potentiality of the product and it symply does not work.
I transform it to mesh ( without jagged) then triangulate then merge, but nothing work… quite frustated, I was expecting to use it a lot, but perhaps I’m doing something wrong.

(Alexander Schiftner) #70

Hi, many thanks for your feedback! Looking at the attached image it seems the input triangle mesh is quite coarse, especially in the flat cap regions. Ideally the input mesh edge length should be max 1/2 of the output edge length you want to achieve, the smaller the better.
Please also be aware that T.MAP does not yet support alignment with sharp features, therefore the resulting mesh will not automatically align with the capped surfaces (we are working on this).
You could also post your example and let us have a look.


Hi Snabela, thank you very much for your feedback. As a matter of fact, it turns that without cap it works very well.
I also notice that if I set the “number of level set” too high, rather than beeing closer to the original shape, it makes waves on the surface. However, if I reduce it to 20, it is very close to the original shape. But maybe this is because a cylindre is not a very complex shape. I will try the same exercise to other more complex shapes tomorrow.


Hi Snabela, thank you for your feedback. I’m a long time rhino user (10 years) and I was really looking for such a pluggin. I was automotive designer for years, but now I work as a transportation designer in video games and movies industry.

But for that, I need a clean topology of my surfaces to be able to export it to other soft (such as maya or zbrush) and I still do believe that rhino has his place in this industry to achieve my goals. I really want to test all the possibilities of your pluggin before switching to another soft such as modo.

I’m convinced that if rhino do a small effort to complement their mesh tool in the 6th version combine to a final version of your T-MAP pluggin, it will do a great competitor to the other soft, espacially modo which do both mesh surface and nurbs surface with a clean topology.

I’m really interested in being a beta tester of your product and promote it in my work if I succed in doing nice results.

I will be pleased if you are interseted.

Can you keep me in touch for this ?

Thank you very much, and sorry for my bad english ( it is not my mother tongue)



(Alexander Schiftner) #73

Hi Jonathan,

many thanks for your feedback. We are very interested in having your continuous feedback about T.MAP, please don’t hold back. We will keep you updated about our progress.

Best regards, Alex


if you guys bring Tmap to GH im sure it will boost sales