Estoy desarrollando una definición en Grasshopper en la que busco generar un volumen complejo a partir de un campo vectorial (Vector Field). La idea es que el campo controle tres reglas principales:
Rotación
Escala
Attractor (influencia sobre el volumen a partir de un punto de referencia)
Hasta ahora he logrado avances, pero me encuentro atascado en varios puntos:
La regla del attractor no me funciona correctamente. He intentado conectarla al campo mediante el componente Amplitude y luego multiplicar valores, pero los resultados dejan de ser vectores y se convierten en números, lo que rompe la lógica.
Tampoco consigo que la rotación se aplique de manera coherente dentro del campo.
En el caso de la escala, no sé si debería vincularla directamente a la magnitud de los vectores o si existe un método más estable.
Por eso mis dudas son:
¿Cómo estructurar correctamente la integración del attractor como regla dentro de un campo vectorial?
¿Cómo lograr que la rotación funcione realmente como parte del campo y no solo como un valor numérico aislado?
¿Qué estrategia recomiendan para que la escala se controle con el campo sin perder consistencia en la geometría?
Oh, I see. My apologies. I will post my question again in English.
I am developing a Grasshopper definition where I want to generate a complex volume from a Vector Field. The idea is that the field should control three main rules:
Rotation
Scale
Attractor (influence over the volume from a reference point)
So far I have made some progress, but I am stuck at several points:
The attractor rule is not working properly. I tried to connect it to the field using the Amplitude component and then multiply values, but the results stop being vectors and turn into numbers, which breaks the logic.
I also cannot get the rotation to apply consistently within the field.
For the scale, I am not sure if it should be directly linked to the vector magnitudes or if there is a more stable approach.
My questions are:
How can I properly integrate the attractor as a rule within a Vector Field?
How can I make the rotation truly behave as part of the field and not just as an isolated numeric value?
What strategy would you recommend for controlling the scale with the field without losing geometric consistency?
Most of the time a “simple” rotation is an angle, a rotation center and a direction. Here you have just a Vector. What is the rotation center, what is the angle ?
Do you want to apply a global scale or a scale for each point ? If you want a scale Use Vector Length, not amplitude that is a multiplication.
What I want to achieve with my definition is the following:
Attraction/Repulsion: the seed approaches or moves away from a point or mass of influence, but in a smooth and continuous way.
Twist/Rotation: the seed twists or rotates in response to vector forces. This can happen across the entire geometry or locally, by grouping vectors that only affect certain regions.
Radial Scaling: the seed expands or contracts from an axis or center.
In general, the seed (base cylinder) should undergo continuous transformations as a result of the interaction with the force field. These transformations are not random, but follow objective rules.
my question is:
How can I make the rotation behave as part of the vector field, instead of just as an isolated numeric angle?
What strategy would you recommend to control the scale with the field without losing geometric consistency?
How can I make the attractor effect smoother, instead of producing abrupt changes?
What I want is for that vector field (the cube with the points) to control the transformation of my seed (the cylinder) through the three rules I defined
