Interesting – I always thought I subconsciously “avoided” to work around 3D Voronoi partly for preconception as “over trendy”, partly becausenever solving any other problem for me other than beautifull intricate cellular packing – I finally had to write my own code to generate a 3D Voronoi as an under layer piece of code for an other design tool application.
The structure of the code written in rhinoscript DOESN”T REQUIRE THE NEED OF QHull data set; the code somehow “happened” to become a 3D Voronoi while originally looking at a different purpose – looking at shapes describe through some kind of wireframe in tension based on locator in 3D space – the striking similarity of the first result finally forced me to spend few more extra hours to force the code to output a more mathemically purist version of the 3D Voronoi… finally or simply once more “never say never”…

“Mathematically purist” – well within our more and more complex understanding of our contemporary society, the word “purist” can only be a very narrow and dangerous call – and I do apologize for that… my interpretation at the time was a qualificatif for simply following straight forward the steps of the Voronoi 3D geometrical description… sorry – no funky mathematical algorythm…
Though staying within rhino – a CAAD software – and write your own tool allows I believe to be in control of your code and therefore be able to manipulated away from its primarly algorythm toward a design tool – like with the 2D version for exemple…

First “delirium tremens”



  Andrea Graziano wrote @

It,s a better version of this one: is a new version mathematically optimized?Sorry for my english!

  theverymany wrote @

andrea – thx for the link – interesting comparaison – yet I guess I took a much shorter process (70 lines)… also then must run faster (important when many pts)… ++

  moosbrugger wrote @

Your code is 70 lines because you used Rhino.methods to simply clip a plane, an extension of the 2d voronoi code you displayed earlier? Or did you use a vector approach, as Gabe did above but using the new inbuilt vector methods in Rhino 4 instead of writing your own? I am guessing the former but would be interested to know exactly what you are describing as mathematically purist. Thanks.

  moosbrugger wrote @

Sorry that was not very clear, did you a)rotate your construction plane and use a similar script to your 2d vornoi (with both curve and 3d booleans) b)Use the boolean approach as gabe did but with the inbuilt Rhino vector methods c)or by mathematically purist do you mean that you used a vector intersection of planes approach to calculate your 3d cells?d) none of the above, something totally different. If so please explain. It would be nice if you could show the script either way.I am interested because the boolean method will leave the uv space of the cells unusable, as it would represent the original size of the face before the booleans. Just turn the control points on to see what I mean. I guess you could explode the cells into planes, duplicate the borders and create a new surface that way but its not too elegant.Thanks.

  Andrea Graziano wrote @

Are you planning to post your new Voronoi3d script?I think is very useful that you post your script like you do in past becouse everyone is studing rhinoscriting, like me, can improve testing and modifying the script of onother one.Thanks

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s