I want a consistent mesh for these two shapes, whereas now I have two independent meshes.
Any advice welcome.
breps.gh (40.3 KB)
Thanks
Hi,
Try to use Brep join comand to join both breps and then use Triremesh comand to make a mesh from both joined breps.
Regards!
Hi,
Couldn’t [brep] join them, seemed to be the problem!
Thanks
It isn’t possible because the brep and the surface don’t share naked edges where they meet.
What’s the solution here? How to I build these surfaces so that they can be meshed together?
Thanks!
Did you try to split a brep with the other brep then join?
Indeed, I did. Maybe here the issue is caused by three surfaces intersecting at a single edge, i.e., a non-manifold edge?
1 Like
In my opinion, your goal of getting one “consistent mesh” from this brep and surface is pointless, because it would be an invalid mesh with non-manifold edges. Meshes are meant to be either surfaces or solids.
The highlighted, orange edges are non-manifold in the example above, which is super bad news.
What would be possible is to reconstruct the two n.u.r.b.s objects as two distinct meshes with matching topologies.
1 Like
Hi @James_Whiteley,
you can try NonmanifoldMerge but be aware that it causes many commands to fail as it is not clear where the inside and outside is.
_
c.
It will come back to bite him in the ass later.
1 Like
Absolutely. That’s why i linked to the helpdoc which also gives that information.
it seems the mesher does not complain and does what the user asks for.
_
c.
@clement thanks for the advice, I will give it a try.
@diff-arch the goal is FEA, similar to analysis of a stiffened cylinder, hence the geometry. I wonder how others managed it, e.g., in the image below.
