join two surfaces

[ossosso]

Hello everyone,
Excuse me guys, but I'd like to join the two surfaces of this scene (rhino5):
http://www.ossosso.com/scambio/merge_srf.3dmthe mergesrf command returns the message that edges are too distant. the "native" geometry was a polygonal then exported to nurbs.

I wish I could find a way to join them without rebuilding them.

Thank you very much.

 

[mariuss.r]

Hello everyone,
Excuse me guys, but I'd like to join the two surfaces of this scene (rhino5):
http://www.ossosso.com/scambio/merge_srf.3dmthe mergesrf command returns the message that edges are too distant. the "native" geometry was a polygonal then exported to nurbs.

I wish I could find a way to join them without rebuilding them.

Thank you very much.

use the _joinedge command that allows to "force" the union of two surfaces with sides not perfectly combing.
The command also tells you which is the maximum distance between two sides

By the way, what kind of tolerance you set... I believe that a tolerance of 1 thousandth (0.001) is more than enough for any type of processing, if you keep what I found in the file you will always have problems in combining two or more surfaces, as well as slowing down your pc.

 

[ossosso]

Thank you very much marius!

actually works . Can I ask you to take a look at the same model with a third added surface that should join the previous two?

once I join the two then I can't hook the third one with the same method, maybe it should be taken a different approach.
http://www.ossosso.com/scambio/merge_srf2.3dmThanks again.

 

[mariuss.r]

Thank you very much marius!

actually works . Can I ask you to take a look at the same model with a third added surface that should join the previous two?

once I join the two then I can't hook the third one with the same method, maybe it should be taken a different approach.
http://www.ossosso.com/scambio/merge_srf2.3dmThanks again.

to me not from any problem.. .
the two larger surfaces have edges at a maximum distance of 0.007 thousandths so within the general tolerance I see you set to 1 cent, and then they join easily.
the smallest surface (the lateral one) has edges at a distance of 2 tenths, much higher than the tolerance set, using the command I already indicated you joins the one to the other 2.

ps: to force the edges to join is not a very correct modeling practice, always wears trouble, especially with fillets.

 

[ossosso]

mariuss you have to apologize but I have to ask you a little patience, I'm sure wrong something, I write step by step below as I move:

-open file "merge_srf2.3dm"
- We call the "mergesrf" command, and select the two large surfaces on the left. I leave the command settings by default: smooth=yes, tolerance=0.01, roundness=1. It works properly, the two surfaces are joined (in the contact point of the three surfaces round a bit, I imagine because of the "mergesrf" settings, I hope not for that).
-I try the "mergesrf" command also between the large and smaller solid surface on the left, but I return the message "edges are too far apart to merge. "
- Then I try with the command you signaled me "joinedge." I call the command, I make a selection window that takes the two shared edges. a popup window appears immediately with "joining these edges requires a joining of 0.437292. do you want to join these edges? "
Now I don't know.. the unit settings for aboslute tolerance have a value of 0.01. I don't understand if the option parameter is ignored, or I have to manually set at least 0.5 to stay inside the decimal number that gives me. I say "yes" anyway
-The two surfaces are joined but not "emerged", so I have to explode them to use the "mergesrf" command on them.
- we call the "mergesrf" command and select the two surfaces, but ahimé returns the message "edges are too far apart to merge again. "

How do I move? How did you form a single large surface?

Thank you again.

 

[mariuss.r]

mariuss you have to apologize but I have to ask you a little patience, I'm sure wrong something, I write step by step below as I move:

-open file "merge_srf2.3dm"
- We call the "mergesrf" command, and select the two large surfaces on the left. I leave the command settings by default: smooth=yes, tolerance=0.01, roundness=1. It works properly, the two surfaces are joined (in the contact point of the three surfaces round a bit, I imagine because of the "mergesrf" settings, I hope not for that).
-I try the "mergesrf" command also between the large and smaller solid surface on the left, but I return the message "edges are too far apart to merge. "
- Then I try with the command you signaled me "joinedge." I call the command, I make a selection window that takes the two shared edges. a popup window appears immediately with "joining these edges requires a joining of 0.437292. do you want to join these edges? "
Now I don't know.. the unit settings for aboslute tolerance have a value of 0.01. I don't understand if the option parameter is ignored, or I have to manually set at least 0.5 to stay inside the decimal number that gives me. I say "yes" anyway
-The two surfaces are joined but not "emerged", so I have to explode them to use the "mergesrf" command on them.
- we call the "mergesrf" command and select the two surfaces, but ahimé returns the message "edges are too far apart to merge again. "

How do I move? How did you form a single large surface?

Thank you again.

I understand now. you would like from three surfaces to get one....very good idea.

the mergesrf command serves just this, but it only works if the surfaces to "play" are not trimmed.
In your case, the two large surfaces meet this basic condition, but not the smallest surface that is a trimmed surface.

It is much better to work on a polysurface (together with surfaces joined together with the _join command) than on a very complex surface ( resulting from the mergesrf command).

 

[ossosso]

I think I understand the problem of the three surfaces. from what little I know "trimmed" should mean a surface "cut" or however that no longer respects the rule of the nurbs surface consisting of 4 sides and uv coordinates.
I actually believe that all 3 surfaces are "untrimmed", so normal (it should be confirmed by the "shrinktrimmedsrf" command that returns me "the surface is already shrunk".
what happens is that you can't do the "mergesrf" getting a surface to "l" so to speak, but you have to stay square:
http://www.ossosso.com/scambio/nurbs_srf.jpgso in my case it would be necessary that the small surface extend throughout the large surface as I marked with the black trajectory.

rightly you point out that it is preferable to work with polysurfaces rather than a single complex.
but my need arises simply from mapping.
apparently or however to what I know each surface has its uv coordinates this means that by flanking two different surfaces and applying a texture, the texture will stop on one surface and then have another trend in the other. On the contrary, I need that on the whole surface there is maximum continuity for reasons of texture and I thought to merge to the best that I can the surfaces.

the alternative would be to intervene individually on each surface to adjust the offset and the uv coordinates so that they coincide with those of the nearby surface, but it is too sluggish and laborious work.

Until now you have been extremely helpful and courteous, so I would not like to take advantage of it, but if I had any further advice to obtain a model with continuity of textures so that there is no gap between one surface and the other, I would be very grateful to you

Thank you again!

 

[mariuss.r]

I think I understand the problem of the three surfaces. from what little I know "trimmed" should mean a surface "cut" or however that no longer respects the rule of the nurbs surface consisting of 4 sides and uv coordinates.
I actually believe that all 3 surfaces are "untrimmed", so normal (it should be confirmed by the "shrinktrimmedsrf" command that returns me "the surface is already shrunk".
what happens is that you can't do the "mergesrf" getting a surface to "l" so to speak, but you have to stay square:
http://www.ossosso.com/scambio/nurbs_srf.jpgso in my case it would be necessary that the small surface extend throughout the large surface as I marked with the black trajectory.

rightly you point out that it is preferable to work with polysurfaces rather than a single complex.
but my need arises simply from mapping.
apparently or however to what I know each surface has its uv coordinates this means that by flanking two different surfaces and applying a texture, the texture will stop on one surface and then have another trend in the other. On the contrary, I need that on the whole surface there is maximum continuity for reasons of texture and I thought to merge to the best that I can the surfaces.

the alternative would be to intervene individually on each surface to adjust the offset and the uv coordinates so that they coincide with those of the nearby surface, but it is too sluggish and laborious work.

Until now you have been extremely helpful and courteous, so I would not like to take advantage of it, but if I had any further advice to obtain a model with continuity of textures so that there is no gap between one surface and the other, I would be very grateful to you

Thank you again!

to obtain on a polysurface a uniformity of textures released from the uv coordinates is sufficent (in rhino) choose from the menu of the properties' of the polysurface (set function f3), the modalita texturemapping->box (see attached image)

Do some experiment ... I don't use it and so I can't give you any more indications