almost 6 years ago by Maxtropolitan
The video is super slow to download, and that's definitely not on my end, because other sites are working lightning fast. What's going on? Also, it looks like this definition fails on surfaces that aren't simply convex. Even a gentle twist or wave yields bad results. I also tried flattening the surface in your sample file a bit by scaling Z down with the gumball, and that also started to yield bad results. Why is that? Is this just the nature of geodesic geometry or could I improve on this definition somehow?
Arie Willem de Jongh almost 6 years ago
Hi Max,
Is it just this video that is sluggish, or is it with all of the lessons you try to watch? Did you always have this problem or was it just this instant? Please send me an email at arie@thinkparametric.com and I'm happy to see what we can do about this.
A conventional hexagonal pattern only "works" on simple convex surfaces, you're right. As soon as you go to concave, the hexagon tiling has to adapt and form "weird" hexagons to be able to tile the surface. I'm Including a definition that is a little more flexible in terms of different kinds of surface you can use. I hope it may help you on your way. (you need Rhino 6 to open it and the Lunchbox plugin for the hexagonal tiling here: https://www.food4rhino.com/app/lunchbox )
definition: https://mega.nz/#!BYsWjSZB!jA_MuHRaXnc0sBW7itFvcrDxJlcMTRy1uJx0B3S0Atg
Best,
Arie
Maxtropolitan almost 6 years ago
Thanks. I'm going to try a couple other tutorials and see how the video works.
Also: does rebuilding the UV and making it more uniform help the original definition work better? Or is it much more about compound surfaces that change direction? Now that you explain, from a pure geometry perspective it makes sense that it'd be necessary to keep the surface relatively simple.