0
$\begingroup$

Connecting vertex points using the Stored Named Attribute node using geometry nodes.

I'm trying to connect vertex points to create a closed object for 3D printing.

Example: Current open object

img1

I'm trying to connect vertex point 16 to 50 and vertex point 12 to 48 to close the object.

img2

The line isn't being created and the node connection is not correct (even though they are the same color)

img3

The goal is to close the object so I can extrude it up (to make it solid / manifold object for 3D printing) but still have the ability to change which vertices get closed / connected.

See attached File:

Update: @quellenform Originally I was doing a simple boolean mesh difference (using a "cube as a cutter" see image below) to get the angle I wanted, but I want to make it a little more adjustable by having the ability to try different cuts by connecting the vertices directly, seems cleaner then mesh cuts. The reason for this is that they will be used to hold different size tubes. Instead of changing the radius/diameter of the circle and the "cube cutter". Having the vertices connected at the very start prevents me from fiddling around with the "cube cutter" to get the cut angle I want.

What I currently create with Mesh Boolean and a cube difference and what I'm now trying to reproduce with connecting vertices img fin

I'm using Blender 3.4.1

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ This could be an XY problem. It's not really clear from your setup what exactly you're doing here. First you have the shape you need, and then you delete edges from it, and then you want to restore those edges? This doesn't sound logical and maybe there is a completely different way to get to your goal, if you could explain this more precisely (Even if there is of course a solution for this question). $\endgroup$
    – quellenform ♦
    Mar 23 at 10:00
  • $\begingroup$ Is that what you want to achieve? i.stack.imgur.com/7EqMp.png $\endgroup$
    – quellenform ♦
    Mar 23 at 10:23
  • $\begingroup$ @quellenform I'll update the question with an image. Originally I was doing a simple boolean mesh difference (using a cube as a cutter see image above) to get the angle I wanted, but I want to make it a little more adjustable by having the ability to try different cuts by connecting the vertices directly seems cleaner then boolean mesh cuts. $\endgroup$
    – Rick T
    Mar 23 at 10:28
  • $\begingroup$ OK, I understand, but should the cuts then be radial or straight, as in your example with the cube? Because the way you set it up, you can only cut exactly at the existing points. Also, you could use a Boolean modifier and a Decimate modifier (Planar) one after the other. $\endgroup$
    – quellenform ♦
    Mar 23 at 10:40
  • $\begingroup$ @quellenform I want to say straight like the image above when the cube cuts through the object from above. But to be honest I'm not sure what you mean by radial cuts since the circle diameter is created already. $\endgroup$
    – Rick T
    Mar 23 at 10:45

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

Since you described in the comments that the cuts should be parallel to each other, a selection via the indices of the points would not be purposeful.

I would rather suggest the following solution:

enter image description here

Here I first create two circles, which each get the radius you selected.

In addition, I create a rectangle, which serves as a cutting mask.

The principle is then similar to a Boolean modifier, only here I do the trick via Fill Curve.

This node creates a flat mesh with faces from the given curves. Where the lines intersect, holes are created:

enter image description here

So the excess geometry just needs to be removed. And you achieve this by sending a raycast from this geometry down to the rectangle, and on a hit simply deleting these faces.


(Blender 3.2+)

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @RickT PS: If it doesn't work because the value for the cut width is too small, then when you create the rectangle, don't divide by $2$, but by $1.5$, for example. This has to do with the fact that below a certain width, the center of the face of the ring, is exactly in the middle, and hits the rectangle when raycasting down. $\endgroup$
    – quellenform ♦
    Mar 23 at 11:40
  • $\begingroup$ I never would have thought of using Raycast that way...Another option in the tool box. Thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Rick T
    Mar 23 at 11:50

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .