Hi, Yes, that part [the red one] should be trimmed. But this can be done in the 2D pattern making process
Thanks,
Hi,
Sorry, not sure I’ve understood?
After splitting I’ve 3 pieces/shapes and the original surface. What means ‘whole mesh’?
Thanks for your support!
Sorry, I didn’t mean to create confusion - it might pay for you to look into some basic terminology.
Once turned into polygons (also later triangulated) your original surface became a mesh - I suggested splitting your surface into split patches (defined by your curves) and those patches into polygons (meshes) for the flattening simulation to operate on the whole mesh (all patches joined together as polygons).
yup, I was using projection of curve points (instead of pulling them) to avoid deforming your curves blah blah anywaaay now ‘fixed’ via MeshMap:
Check attached and best of luck
SHOE_LAST_FLATTENING_D.gh (438.7 KB)
[note] I trimmed the curve on purpose, but you can reinstate your original curves, it should work fine:
2 Likes
It is obvious I’ve to study because still I don’t understand! As all this thread was very useful to me I guess your suggestion will help me! The truth is that I don’t know what I’ve to do. I split the surface into pieces [one example attaches]. Now I’ve to transform each piece into a mesh and after that to join all meshes. Joined meshes will be then flattened. Is that right?
Playing with ‘LengthFactor’ give nice results - I like it a lot! Now I’ve to check with a real last!
Thank you again for your support!
great effort @PetcuDaniel, keep it up !
essentially, but after testing it myself results were a bit dirty so I defaulted to mapping the curves to the flattened geometry instead - clearner/faster anyway, plus as you said the curve work can happen in 2D once your shape is ‘squished’ - as long as it’s mapped correctly.
awesome! Glad it helps, comment back if you need assistance
1 Like
By the way: there are a lot of videos regarding 3D OR 2D design of the footwear in Rhino but no one to show the transition from 3D to 2D via computer flattening. Seems that 3D and 2D processes are 2 separate worlds even if in practice there is a continuum. This is why I found important your support! Thanks!
1 Like
Thanks man!
You’re right, and by no means I assert this method here is the most correct or the most effective, but as you point out it helps a designer narrow the gap between just playing with 3D and preparing a design for real-life. And it’s just the start!!
More than anything thanks and kudos to those creating these platforms: David Rutten for grasshopper, Daniel Piker for kangaroo - without them this little plug-n-chug script wouldn’t be possible!
Make sure to share some results here! 
Best!
Hi,
Attached a first result!
Looks nice, isn’t it?
Thank you again!
1 Like
seems like it’s not playing here but downloaded it and watched it - thanks for sharing, great work! Keep it up!
I don’t know why it doesn’t play! I’m trying with a .gif!
3 Likes
This is really cool work. What would it take to make this some kind of production ready/proprietary tool?
Not only mine but yours and Daniel Piker’s work too!
Whoops - you misunerstand me! Proprietary was a poor word choice.
I simply mean for it to be something that is an easy to find component in Grasshopper. Not a utility which has to hunted around for on the forums 
1 Like
I don’t have such an experience but even if such component will be defined it should be tested against real lasts flattening surfaces in order to see which values of the variables works better. I personally I’ve tested the flattened surface of the same last obtained from 2 experienced patternmakers + squish [Rhino] + last flattening [Autodesk-Delcam] and the result was 4 different patterns…
1 Like
Agree Daniel. And I’m sure RomansCAD / iCAD would generate two more different results maybe!
Also, I actually didn’t realise that proprietary was necessarily a synonym for closed source, so I learned something new. Sorry again @_corellaman for any confusion. Anywho, it’s something great to play with and shows promise!
Hello,
Attached another step forward!
Thanks again!
3 Likes
Hi!
I’ve been trying to get a flat representation from a non-developable, double curved surface as well. Unfortunately, I don’t manage to get the flat shape with your script but I don’t really get where it is stuck.
test 1.gh (79.6 KB)
Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance!
The reasons your geometry isn’t working the way you want are:
-
It’s a polysurface, not a surface - for some reason gh still calls it an untrimmed surface
-
Your shape has is pinched at the top, even if rebuilt as a new surface, the corner points meet at a very short distance:
Perhaps you could try with a different surface?
Here’s a quick test using a similar surface but less pinched at the top, then the solution behaves better:
test 1.gh (72.8 KB)
Best
2 Likes