The 3D-Volume-Voronoi Information Thread

[quote=“CAD CAM CNC, post:20, topic:144053, username:lander”]
I wish there was a thread specifically for the 3D-Volume-Voronoi stuff …
[/quote] @lander
As they say, the best time to plant a fruit tree was 10+ years ago, but the second best is now.

Post your 3d Voronoi stuff here in this thread.
If you think someone could find it useful or helpful. Stick it here.
Links to other topics that could be helpful should also be here.

Have Fun!

1 Like

Nice! @Ryan14 lots of good threads there. :beers:

I ran out of likes for the day so I’ll have to push that button tomorrow :sunglasses:

I’m going to browse and link things here later too.

Ok, so this is a link to the version I was using this last May, which was a culmination from yrs of research and files I found from @DanielPiker I’m pretty sure.

I never quite understood what’s totally going on in that file. But I plan to do more work and compiling. Then I’ll upload new mods, and maybe others I find shared n’ stuff, so…

I’ll try n’ post better demonstrations soon.

I almost fell asleep waiting for this to calculate lol:

this was one of the recent projects I was working on this, later I’ll try posting more examples

I’m not original author of this GH file, I think @DanielPiker is

My dream for the future is to have a recipe that calcs faster and has more control :sunglasses:

My overall goal is to gain control over the core geometry of how solids will print in true 3D. Tangentially, I’ll need to get a slicer program to recognize the core geometry as the same mesh as the outer shell geometry :thinking: :thought_balloon:

I also hope to be able to understand what I’m looking at on these components in GH :sweat_smile:

But if someone can make us users a Rhino button Eto thingamagjig, that’s fine too :grin:

I’ll be using this as the current base point reference, and comparing anything else available to come up with the ultimate best recipe: (33.8 KB)

1 Like

linking this for further study

I think I’ve already tried this, but will take another look

so, I really want to see these side by side comparison:

:face_with_monocle: :thinking: :thought_balloon:

:face_with_monocle: :thinking: :thought_balloon:

1 Like

not sure if this one is ready yet for closed polysurfaces…

1 Like


I probably should not ask this in this thread but,
is this structural form finding? It reminds me of bone structure somewhat… :thinking:

1 Like

Well, I think inevitably because nature is so excellent at …

…then, yes I was kinda lead down that similar path of bone structure geometry.

I guess where I started was more towards the direction of the ‘so called’ ‘generative design’ AI sillyness that ppl like to hype about in other CAD’s.

It’s funny when ppl act like ‘generative design’ is the bestest and strongest way to design these days.

I would say it looks cool, but if not executed properly then it isn’t as strong as ppl might think. Instead it’s just another AI buzzword.

I’ve seen a lot of ‘generatively designed’ stuff that looks weak or sparsely structured – imo.

So, ultimately yes, I think what I’m after is a bone structure style but one where I can control the geometry somewhat in order to balance the aesthetics and the strength.

I just don’t think AI or ‘generative design’ really exists yet, other that the algorithms that ppl may use to make “fancy” geometry to fool customers with more AI hype.

To this point, yes I’d prefer some control as I stated, but really I’d like to discover some sort of Occam’s razor simple yet automated approach to any closed polysrf type geometry.

I think it would be awesome to be able to apply the calculation to any object I might want to 3D print – per say. That’s kinda where it started.

So, I suppose there’s a couple aspects in my perspective, but currently more oriented towards trying to obtain control over the core geometry of 3D-prints.

The other problem however, I ran into, was getting the slicer program to interpret the core mesh as part of the same mesh of the outer shell.

Hence, kinda seems impossible atm. Or like there’s a sorta compromise that will have to be done to trick software…

Furthermore, If I had more control over the voronoi geometry, it’s possible I could do away with the ‘outer shell’ and disregard the “core” style approach, and simply use the ‘voronoi’ geometry entirely.

Which, with the images of my geometry I’ve been sharing, I’d have to reveal the action of how I intend to use it in order for that last part to make sense – not sure I’m ready to disclose that or if I’d even have to use my part that way for my system to work. But basically has to do with solids-lifting-overflow and fluid dynamics – kinda top secret atm, even though the aquaponics industry is where I discovered the basic idea.

Simplest is best though, and voronoi geometry might be a distraction for that project.

So, I mostly would focus on what can be done in terms of 3D-printing mold core geometry per say, and whether there’s really any benefit.

Other than that, yes, maybe there’s a ‘generative design’ and structural benefit approach to all this, whether the nature of bone structure geometry is the key or not…

1 Like

So, idk this looks different than what I’m looking for in terms of solid skeleton core style volumetrics…

I’ll try modding this for solids or somem… hhmm seems mostly for curves and boxes …

1 Like

might be a good dendro example:

1 Like

Very interesting thread, I think is still relevant, even though looks more 2D oriented, I believe I’ve seen other similar 3D examples.

Although more mesh engineering related, I think I’d include it within the same context.

I believe Rhino has the capability of being a very superb mesher someday…

Here’s a few more that look promising:

1 Like

Iguana 3D mesh is this (1010.6 KB)

Not sure if this is 3D Voronoi.

The cells(Breps) are produced by the Iguana plugin.


Updated version.


Yeah, I only use the nomenclature of ‘voronoi/delaunay’ etc. to try to adapt to certain identifying category, but those shapes look awesome! :sunglasses:

‘Iguana’ hmm interesting :face_with_monocle: :thinking: :thought_balloon:

1 Like

These two types of composition look like one could be a ‘support’ type structure and the other could be an ‘inner core’ type structure :face_with_monocle: :beers:

In a 3D print application, the slicing software would need to be able to provide the user a way to deal with either approach. Just thoughts for that, cause I know the slicer might have limitations – I’m not sure yet.

1 Like

Reviewing this subject again today. And these look really cool! :coffee: :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like

:grin: Thank you!

1 Like