Why doesn’t InflateCrv work on this shape?
daria-cinta-forum.3dm (9.7 MB)
And why does this area suddenly become flat at this point? I’ve tried several different options, but I can’t get rid of this abrupt transition.
It looks like the maximum resolution is 20. Increasing it reduces the flattening a bit, but I think I’d need to raise the resolution to around 50. Unfortunately, it won’t go beyond 20.
I know it’s not a solution but have you tried to scale up your shape and the scale it down back to it’s original size?
No, for now I was working at a 1:1 scale.
But if that’s the only solution and it works, I’ll give it a try, even though I’d rather avoid it. I’m still working on the model, and I need to keep an eye on things like the wall thickness for 3D printing, and so on.
Besides this flattening issue, which also occurs in other situations, I’m also experiencing this display bug whenever the command is active.
@skysurfer Scaling it up works better, but now giving precise dimensions doesn’t really make sense. At this point, you’re basically working by feel.
Ehm, no… if you scale up by 10 and you then scale down by 0.1 you get exact measures.
To make the bridge the same height as a the rest, you can increase the flattening value.
(Note that the way this setting works has been updated since the initial post in this thread to hopefully make it clearer - instead of a distance the flattening is now a value between 0 and 1, with 0 being no flattening applied, and 1 being maximum flattening of the top of the shape)
Here with a value of 0.8:
For the first image - it looks in the file like this is actually 2 separate open curves.
The command needs a closed planar curve to work
For the wireframe rendering issue in your video - agreed it does look like something isn’t working quite right with the preview, but I can’t reproduce it here. Do you have an already completed mesh or surface in your video that it is overlapping with, or are we seeing only the preview?
For the issue of flattening towards the tips of pointy shapes - sometimes using the QuadRemesh option can help the mesh edges better follow the shape.
Very pointy shapes that go to a tiny angle at the tip will still be tricky though. There may be some ways we can improve this.
That strange display issue only occurs once the InflateCrv command is started.
To make the bridge the same height as a the rest, you can increase the flattening value.
Daniel, thank you–that does do what I asked for, but is only helpful if one wants a flattened top surface. I’m hoping for the ability to maintain the domed effect and raise the heights of the bridges. Again, as I noted before, SubD output would make it possible to adjust after the fact, but that’s not practical with a more complex shape like a mandala or text.
What you’re asking for would have to be something quite different from the way this works now, and it’s not clear to me how you would even define it in a consistent way.
InflateCrv uses a function of the distance from each point on the interior to all the points along the boundary to determine a height which fairly closely approximates the shape of an inflated bubble.
For a narrow ‘bridge’ in the input curve, the surface in the middle of that bridge is by definition closer to the boundary. If the bridge has to reach the same maximum height there as the rest of the shape it therefore has to rise steeply away from the boundary, while to match this height without flattening the top, the surface in the more open regions of the curve would have to rise more gently. However what counts as a ‘bridge’ region deserving this special treatment isn’t yet clearly defined.