over 4 years ago by Loke Zhi Ming
Dear Sir, thanks alot for the lessons, really appreciate it ! Wanted to ask is the main objective for the simulations are to actually keep the Hexagonal Panels the same size and dimension as much as possible (minimizing changes in Hexagon panel dimension)? In this case, does it make the panels more precise and accurate(Mathematically) for fabrication purposes in real life ? As was actually thinking how this approach is more beneficial compared to using Lunchbox plugin alone. Am also having this condition where the Hexagon Panels appear stretched at some parts(Highlighted in Blue). Does this mean that it is mathematically not possible to cover the area without stretching the Hexagon Panel ? And at such is more suitable to make the Hexagon Panel smaller size for more feasible fabrication ? Thanks
Arie Willem de Jongh over 4 years ago
Hi Loke,
Yes and yes to your first two questions. Your last two questions are also correct. Because of the double curvature of the underlying surface, it is impossible to cover the surface with identical hexagons. So something's got to give, the Kangaroo pass, is to spread the hexagons out on the surface as equally and identically as possible. Then using the Lunchbox component, we group certain identical sets together using various parameters we find important. Then in the last lesson we replace those sets with 1 hexagon for the whole set.
Making the hexagon smaller definitely will result in more equal and identical hexagons (they differ relatively less from one another), but you need more hexagons and your constructor/engineer/manufacturer will not like you very much haha.
Cheers, I'm glad you like the course!
Arie