@tig said:

@guanjin said:

I use the Slicer5 tool, with the second parameter set; I waited for a long time for the Slices - the reason is the [number of] operations ?
The exported files... Where can I find them?
A form that is that complex with slots etc WILL take a long time to process all of the parts...
It looks like it failed - because there are no proper slots made***.

Hi TIG

I'm experiencing some problems as well. The slots aren't properly cut, faces are deleted etc. I've attached the file for you to look at.

Cheers,

Joel

File for TIG

@unknownuser said:

I am afraid that this cannot be fixed instantly. What I suggest is that you play with the vertex matchning by dragging the junction curves and eliminating the auto-pairs.

Fredo

Thanks for looking into it anyway Fredo. I guess this issue of vertex matching becomes very important now that there is a lot of buzz going on around thomthom's quad face tools which require a regular set-out of quad faces in order to properly utilise features such as loop and ring select etc.

My dream is that one day this kind of quad-based system will lead to a free-form paneliser tool for SU. I posted a topic on it here:

http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=39992

It has huge architectural implications for architects like me who use SU heavily as a design tool. Not many people seem to be interested in it though...which is rather strange.

Cheers,

Joel

@unknownuser said:

Could you post the model so that I have a closer look

Thanks

Fredo

Hi Fredo

I've attached a model showing the problems I described. I've showed the exact steps i took and colour coded/labelled the problematic areas.

Thanks so much for looking into this!

Cheers,

Joel

CL Test Model

@unknownuser said:

So far, the only possibility is to use the Global F-spline options. It draws a mesh between the first and last contours trying to be as close as posible to the intermediate contours (but not matching their vertex).
This method is the first one of the group of two icons at the right of the Junction methods section in the palette.

Thanks to tell me if this option is useful (I included it just in case....)

Fredo

Hi Fredo

Thanks for your reply. yes i did try the global F-spline options and these are the only options which work. They are definitely very useful; thanks for including them!

What I don't understand however is that the 3 profile curves shown in my example are very similar: they are actually three copies of the same uniform b-spline with slight adjustments to each. They have exactly same number of segments and the segments are all aligned approximately above each other, So I'm not sure why curviloft creates extra intermediate junction curves in some places?

Is it possible for Curviloft to gauge when all the profile curves have the same number of segments and do direct vertex matching without the extra junction curves? The reason being that the most logical way/neatest way of doing a loft is to use Bezierspline to give each of the profile curves the same number of segments before lofting.

Also, any idea about the second issue? the one where the quads are all merged into a single long face? Sorry if I'm a bit long winded, but I'm just very excited about the integration between Curviloft and Quad face tools...

Cheers,

Joel

Hi Fredo

I'm not sure if this question has been answered before, but is there a way to ensure all segments in a loft have the same number of columns of quads and that all the junction curves meet up? I have played around with all the various lofting options with no success.

For example, in this image below all three profile curves have 30 segments but the resulting mesh has disjointed junction curves, making it hard to use thomthom's loop/ring selection tools properly. Also, some of the quads seem to be merged into a single long surface?

Cheers,

Joel

thanks guys...

j

@solo said:

Rich,

Amorph or Photo?

TGI3D Amorph = $149
TGI3D Photoscan = $999

Archipelis 3d = 19 Euros
Archipelis Designer = 38 Euros

And Archipelis has SU integration...i know TGI3D probably has more powerful mesh manipulation features, but...

-.-

j

Hi

Is there a script that toggles how sketchup defines what geometry is displayed in scenes?

It would be nice to sometimes allow scenes to be defined by what is not hidden rather than what is hidden? it gets very tedious to update every single scene in a file after creating a new group/component that only exists in one scene but not all the others.

Cheers,

joel

@thomthom said:

@ivreich said:

Soft Diagonals Feature?

Hi Fredo

Any plans to allow Curviloft to generate meshes with soft diagonals? This will enable Curviloft meshes to be edited with thomthom's new quad face tools (if i'm not mistaken)

Cheers,

Joel

http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=323&t=39442&start=0#p348519

ahhh woops. my bad. didn't see that.

j

Soft Diagonals Feature?

Hi Fredo

Any plans to allow Curviloft to generate meshes with soft diagonals? This will enable Curviloft meshes to be edited with thomthom's new quad face tools (if i'm not mistaken)

Cheers,

Joel

@pr0bka said:

I had a similar request. Seems like we're stuck with using paracloud and grasshopper for now. Heres the link to the earlier post.

http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=24163

I hear you...I just think that with the scripts we are seeing out there currently, it isn't a far stretch of the imagination to allow simple, common panellisation operations to occur natively in SU without having to fork out ridiculous amounts of money for a fully featured programme that isn't always needed.

It certainly would have incredible implications for architects who use SU heavily (like myself), even without the powerful parametric control that software such as paracloud/grasshopper gives you.

I really hope this approach gains more popularity...

j

@sdmitch said:

I think you are asking for someone to put a square peg in a round hole. If you want "precise" then you will obviously have to warp each component instance to each cell individually on a warped surface where rectangles become trapazoids and parallelograms. That is in addition to scaling and rotating.

Yes that was exactly what I was asking in my first post; if it is at all possible to automate the process of warping/mapping each component instance to each cell. I know paracloud achieves this by using face directionality.

I don't quite understand the comment about putting a square peg into a round hole? I totally understand the concept and method of warping an existing grid of components into an irregular shape, but this workflow may not work in all cases. Often a particular shape of mesh is designed first, and then "populated" with components/panels afterwards, as is the case with many facade screens/systems, or even complex roof systems. it is easier to control positioning and thicknesses of the resulting mesh in this way.

j

@ivreich said:

@mitcorb said:

Something in your image suggests that TGI3d Warp tool might do it. This is a commercial tool made for Sketchup. It does have a full function trial version with limited polycount.

I've seen the warper tool. it seems more like a sculpting tool (a la SketchyFFD) rather than a precise panelliser. What I'm really looking for is a tool that has architectural possibilities; e.g. accurate creation of free-form screens/facades.

I will give TGI3d a go but i don't think it has the same application.

j

Ok tried it. doesn't help at all, because warper is inherently not precise and operates simply as a more user friendly FFD.

Also, for some strange reason i can't seem to 'bake' the warped geometry into real-world geometry. it stays as a preview while using the warper, then disappears leaving the original geometry unchanged. That's besides the point though...even if warper did work, it would mean having to warp ever single panel individually which is simply not feasible for panellising meshes.

j

@mitcorb said:

Something in your image suggests that TGI3d Warp tool might do it. This is a commercial tool made for Sketchup. It does have a full function trial version with limited polycount.

I've seen the warper tool. it seems more like a sculpting tool (a la SketchyFFD) rather than a precise panelliser. What I'm really looking for is a tool that has architectural possibilities; e.g. accurate creation of free-form screens/facades.

I will give TGI3d a go but i don't think it has the same application.

j

@sdmitch said:

Couldn't you move your component or group to the first cell of the mesh, scale it to fit the cell, then copy it to fill the first row, then copy the row to fill the mesh?

Not if your mesh is irregular. Here is a rough example of what I'm describing. Of course, it would work only if scripts such as JPP, Curviloft and the EEby-- suite were updated to generate geometry with soft diagonals to create non-planar quads, exactly like what thomthom's new tool does.

cheers

joel

cool plugin!

next step: allow the helix radius to change along center path according to target points.

joel

Hi All

Is it possible to create a tool that allows for a component/group to be populated across a triangulated or quad-faced mesh in SU? i.e. a basic panelisation operation that can be done without having to pay $800 for Paracloud (seriously??? $800??)

JPP can already offset a mesh to create individual "cells" that can be used to define the location/shape of panels. a component can then be stretched to fit each one of those cells (whether cubic or triangular) so that at their borders they meet up seamlessly, exactly like what Paracloud does for its most basic population operation. Correct me if i'm wrong (i'm completely clueless about rubyscript) but it seems like besides JPP there are other scripts that can be "borrowed" from to achieve this result? (e.g. UVtools to define the "direction" of faces)

I guess this would work especially well with thomthom's new quad face tools if other plugins such as Curviloft and the Extrude Edges collection were updated to recognise his definition of quads. i suppose things like face mapping and target points can be worried about later...

Let me know if I'm being completely stupid about this, because like I said I know nuts about rubyscript. I just like throwing out ideas, that's all.

Cheers

joel

Hi Jeff

Thanks for replying. You're right; the manual method is simply "connecting the dots" as you say. It was the most logical way of illustrating my point. I think I see your point though; the manual method presumes a more regular spacing/matching of vertices between the two curves.

I suppose complex pairs of curves would have to be "rebuilt" (pardon the Rhino lingo; I've just finished working at a firm where Rhino is pretty much a religion: if it isn't built in Rhino it isn't worth looking at) to match each other's vertices before the manual method can be used.

I don't know the math behind creating mean curves, it was just an idea that popped into my head one day at work. Any other suggestions?

Cheers,

Joel

NEW FEATURE SUGGESTION: "MEAN CURVE"

Hi again Fredo

I know it hasn't been long since my last feature suggestion ("blend curve by bezier"), but here's another one you might be interested in:

The "mean curve" command in Rhino creates an intermediate or "average" curve between two existing curves, which is especially useful for adding detail to contour maps and such. Is it possible for Bezierspline to do the same?

I have attached an image showing how I imagine it would be done manually; i.e. draw connecting lines linking corresponding vertices on the two original curves, then drawing a third curve linking all the midpoints of those connecting lines to create an "average" curve.

What do you reckon? The added advantage of Bezierspline automating this is that the generated curve would be an editable bspline as well. Does anyone else think this is a good idea?

Cheers,

Joel

![Drawing an "average" curve manually](/uploads/imported_attachments/aud3_MeanCurve.jpg "Drawing an "average" curve manually")

@gaieus said:

@ivreich said:

Just out of curiosity, is there anyone else out there who thinks the same?

Me for instance. Sometimes I'd need to Orbit in the meanwhile and keeping the Shift key down makes me Pan all the time.

Yeah another good reason to rework this function. I'm tempted to write in to Google to make a suggestion but I have no idea where to go?