I wish I had thought of this before spending so much time constructing the mitered triangles
Seems to me what you want is the miter angles for each edge. Those are available directly from Daniel Piker’s code! I’m not sure what format you want for constructing mitered triangles but it’s all there.
The panelization seems to navigate away from the desired scheme - a flowing pattern.
The “Extrusion” focus was that each panel would extrude to a depths of 3/4", which is seemingly not possible…especially with connections that are flat (no torsion).
I don’t know what you are talking about. Extrusion was always the wrong word, you want to trim triangles of a certain thickness. If what I posted this morning is of no use to you, I give up
It’s certainly a big help as I work through this!
Since this is going onto a CNC that drills out the angles autonomously - is there a way to add the 3/4" thickness to each panel within the script that corresponds to the given angle shown?
What does that mean? That you prefer triangles from Lunchbox over TriRemesh triangles? As I said, I don’t have Lunchbox. Code I’ve posted should work with either method.
I added thickened mitered triangular panels to my version ‘Aug29a’ using a similar but different method to what I did in version ‘Aug28a’. Results are identical in volume. This method projects edges to face offset surfaces using Daniel Piker’s edge vectors and trims the offset surfaces with them.
As in version ‘Aug28a’, the big problem was handling the “naked edges” which are missing from Daniel’s code. All the edges and miters look good to me except where they meet adjacent triangles:
I’m not sure yet what’s going on there or how to deal with it?
P.S. I added vertex normals (dark gray group at the top) from here:
I’m not using them, just showing them as white lines… This is a vertex at the edge, which I thought was a problem but now realize it’s just showing what happens at all vertices.
@Joseph_Oster Brilliant! The connected panels have a flat connection which was the major goal here! Huge thanks for solving that. I’m 4 years removed from Grasshopper, which was a priceless tool in graduate school. Jumping back into the waters again is taking some time.
The above image shows a comparison of how the panels connection creates a gradual “clean flow” to all sides. However, your solution seems to be the only way to achieve a flat connection without any torsion, which at this rate shouldn’t be an issue.
Might cut a 30degree miter in all panels as @martinsiegrist suggested to start this project immediately.
I don’t understand your issues with Lunchbox triangles vs, TriRemesh triangles Doesn’t the code work with either one? Seven days ago I said this:
Again, I don’t understand this, sorry?
Here is a solution to vertex overlap on the back of this “shell”, though there may be a few areas of this base surface that are concave, creating overlap on some front vertices too? This is compute-intensive (which cooks my laptop!) so is disabled in the attached GH file. (3.8 minutes!!)
P.S. After closing Rhino and re-opening it, enabling the disabled slow bits, it takes 2.7 minutes, which is what I saw earlier. Apparently it slows down with repetition?
Good point! Using Lunchbox Triangle Panels B creates the desired pattern. The connection is not as consistent on the backside with Lunchbox, but this should be perfectly fine for the LaMelo System when measured + drilled from front face. Reason for this desire is the resulting light reflections as individuals navigate around the wall seen in the very first image.
Your image shows the numeric labels are all zero? So you’ve done something wrong. I don’t like to repeat myself but if you internalize and post the geometry from Lunchbox, I can make it work.
Personally, I like the TriRemesh triangles better.
P.S. Just in case you don’t know what I mean by “internalize”:
No. I don’t have Lunchbox. Please watch the brief, fuzzy old video in my previous post.
From here:
3. Attach minimal versions of all the relevant files
If you have a gh file you have a question about, attach it to the post. Do not expect that people will recreate a file based on a screen-shot because that’s a lot of pointless work. It’s also a good idea to remove everything non-essential from a gh file. You can use the Internalise Data menu option to cut everything to the left of a parameter:
Wow, I’ve been thinking about this for a long time, I actually never managed to do it on GH.
This one is a mine of knowledge
I have little success, but in Python (3mm plywood, painted).
