this might not be what you are looking for as it's just grasshopper without scripting. works with a two step subdivision based on the surface curvature.
this file is for 4point surfaces http://grasshopper3d.googlegroups.com/web/curvature%20subdivision.ghx?hl=en&gsc=iXZOaAsAAACbN0OnIz8kVjlzf-E14iOC i'm actually looking for a way to combine the 4point srf with triangles to get an "optimized" panel system... http://news2.mcneel.com/scripts/dnewsweb.exe?cmd=article&group=rhino.plug-ins&item=31057&utag= On Apr 22, 3:03 am, taz <[email protected]> wrote: > You'll probably have to check with the man who wrote the original > Python code, but the blog hasn't had much activity lately. He may > have been referencing a known routine, but off-hand I'm not familiar > with any other references. > > Someone else may have more info/suggestions/advice in this department. > > On Apr 21, 8:28 pm, oompa_l <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah I am sort of talking about that screenshot, only the thing is, I > > opted to just make 4ptSurfaces so I don't have a bump so much as a gab > > between the extra vertex in a further subdivided region and its less > > resoled neighbour's edge. Maybe it's the same thing. Since we're on > > the subject, and I realise this might be elementary, but why would one > > wnat two triangular nurbs surfaces vs the one with 4 vertices? and in > > this scenario, would a mesh be more appropriate? > > > I'm looking to script the solution. I imagine that instead of > > evaluating the UV of the underlying surface for every recursive step > > of the procedure that I somehow evaluate these points as divisions > > along these neighbouring (or least resolved) subsurfaces...I might > > have just reiterated what you suggested. thanks for the advice > > > On Apr 21, 8:07 pm, taz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > oompa, > > > > Are you talking about the gaps visible from the blog screenshot? > > > >http://culagovski.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/screenhunter_06-oct-... > > > > My first instinct would be that you would need to get the surface > > > border curves, cull the vertex in question (causing the bump), and > > > rebuild the border as 3 lines. That would eliminate the gap for > > > adjacent subdivisions of the same size. > > > > Then you could test the midpoint/quarter points/eighth points of each > > > line with <Closest Point> to cinch up the gap of any smaller adjacent > > > subdivisions within a given tolerance. That would take care of the > > > gaps between between scalar subdivisions (maybe...) to a specified > > > subdivision level. Or you could probably script this to make it truly > > > parametric. > > > > -taz > > > > On Apr 21, 6:08 pm, oompa_l <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I was missing an "End Sub", now it works... > > > > > Anyone have any bright ideas on a good way to force continuity between > > > > unequally subdivided faces? There are gaps at the junctions because a > > > > greater subdivided area has evaluated more points...Anyways, it would > > > > be great if somehow those edge conditions were forced to meet up with > > > > their neighbours. > > > > > any ideas are greatly welcomed! > > > > thanks
