[Plugin] Components onto Faces v1.2.0 UPDATE May 23, 2013
-
Hey xrok1,
I assume you just used copy and paste???
Jeff
-
no? i used the script!
-
Really?....kinda feeling silly now....how did you do it?
-
well... are you ready for this?
1] use construction grid (ruby) to make a grid
2] use edges from construction lines (ruby) to convert construction lines to lines
3] delete every second vertical line, staggering each row
4] use make faces (ruby) to make faces
5] build a brick and make it a component
6] run Components onto Faces v0.1 (ruby)
i told you there were easier ways.
if i had to do it all over again i would just make a rectangle the size of a brick with half a mortar joint. inset the face a little...
you know the rest. -
Amazing Script! Cheers!
-
Chris, thank you for such panelization tool!
I attached sample with slightly modified by Fredo's tools
Uhh, need quads for for beautiful visualization for panels
-
is that normal?
-
About your bug of 2 components on a "same face"
A tricky thing with your "Select lines by lenght"
Make the Surface with the Sandbox "By scratch"
Explode it
Enable Hidden geometry
Select one little diagonal of a square
your very tricky "Select lines by lenght"
Delete it
"Components onto faces"
Et voilà!
Edit hum hum works only if the tin stay "flat"
Maybe use the Smart Drop in addition! By a4architect
Soon little tut
-
Wow, great stuff everyone! I really like that paneled wall ilay. Looks great. And thats a cool method using smart-drop Frenchy. Thanks for showing it.
Oh, and the menu is how I made it, but not really for any good reason I guess. I was hoping to have one or two other items in that sub-sub menu too, but I have not got them written yet. So I was planning ahead, but perhaps too early. Hopefully in time I'll get some more ability written into this script. I am currently working on solving the triangulated faces issue. I think I have a solution. I think.
Chris
-
-
You could do some serious off-roading with those tires! Or some serious damage. Either way, they look super cool!
Is each face truly one square face and not 2 triangle faces with the middle line smoothed? If it is 2 triangles, how did you get around that issue where it copies a component to each of the 2 faces?
Chris
-
Each is a single face, not 2 triangles.
I used the sphere ruby to create a sphere then used your script to apply the component to a portion of the sphere. Then I deleted the extra and filled in with sidewalls. The bad part is I cannot think of any cool vehicle to place these under -
Ok, so I found something...
-
you best be replac'n them there irons with some shoot'n irons where that thin's gona be a tak'n ya yer gona need 'em. he he...
-
UPDATE: v1.0 released - The video in the beginning is also updated
This new version has a new tool called "Components onto Face Collections". It treats collections of faces that have had their edges smoothed/hidden as a single face. So the terrain issue where it was copying 2 components onto each collection of faces is fixed. The new tool will only copy a single component onto the 2 faces. I hope that makes sense and I hope its helpful,
Chris
-
Neat update, save some manipulations
-
Wow, very nice update.
Thank you Chris. -
Thank you very much Chris.
A suggestion: If the faces are triangle, I wish your skript still can put the components onto the centroids of them.
-
Yes, triangles in general are tricky for this script to comprehend because it is basing the centerpoint on the BoundBox, which is alsway a box, even for triangles. I suppose I could test each single face to see if it is a triangle and then find the center of the 3 points instead of the boundingbox method.
Would it be enough to write a 3rd tool called "Components onto Triangle Faces" or something like that. It would only handle triangle faces and nothing else probably. Or would it be better to try to make the two current versions smarter to handle traingles differently? I think I could do it either way fairly easily. Let me know if anyone has a preference - new tool for triangles, or make the 2 current ones support them. I'll think about it while I'm gone today and I'll get back to it later.
Thanks for the suggestions and comments,
Chris
-
I think it'd make more sense to 'smarten' the original script. Centre of the triangle is most likely expected than centre of bounding box. My 2¢
Advertisement