Hi, I am using ShapeDiver because I plan to start a custom furniture e-commerce store. I am currently working on the Grasshopper definitions to try out the 3D product configurator. The first definition for a “real” product I built is already on ShapeDiver; however, it performs rather slowly.
I’ve already read the ShapeDiver blog post on optimizing definitions. My geometry is mostly built out of points, polylines, boundary surfaces, and meshes; the definition works very fast inside Rhino/Grasshopper; Metahopper’s Bottleneck Navigator shows everything should run properly (except for the two SDDisplayGeometry components); all my final geometries have texture mapping; and all my texture images are less than 1 MB.
I ran out of ideas on what to tweak or optimize. Any ideas?
Thanks for reviewing my file and sharing the blog post on Desktop vs Cloud Computation. I’ve read it, and now I understand the differences between both scenarios.
I reviewed my internet connection, and I have a download speed of 25 Mbps, but only 3.85 Mbps of upload speed, therefore, I believe my internet connection might be the main issue. I also read on the blog post you shared that paying customers receive priority on their models, so I have hope that the computation time might be reduced once I upgrade to the paying account.
Regarding the black square, I reviewed the definition and the geometry again many times, both with some Grasshopper components and by baking the geometry to Rhino and using the analysis tools there. There doesn’t seem to be any overlapping geometry or duplicate mesh faces. Also, I reviewed the mesh faces normals and flipped those looking inward, therefore, now all mesh faces look outward, just in case that affects texture mapping. Nevertheless, the black square is still showing up in the ShapeDiver viewer after re-uploading the definition.
I won’t be able to publish a model for customers with an “error” like that. Any ideas what else might be causing the black square to show up?
The flickering black mesh face was due to an incorrect mapping. You used planar mapping for a non-planar object so I replaced it with box mapping which works reliably for most cases. Also, the vertices in the top horizontal elements didn’t tie up and it’s better to use polygon instead of circle for that part, see my edits:
Thank you very much. I never thought about texture mapping as the textures seemed to work correctly on the Rhino viewport, even though I tried different texture mapping shapes (cylinder included). Also, it never occurred to me to use polygon instead of a circle, although that makes sense completely and now I have better control of the number of sides.
