Tree Trunk Object

[Red]

I'm looking around for an object that would look like the picture I attached. I need for the trunk to flare out at the bottom. I would like to be able to change the diameter to 10", 12", 14", & 16". And it would be nice for the flare to be consistent.

Does anyone here know of an object like this, or is anyone interested in helping me out?

[Dwight]

no problem:

In a GDL object, you put a cone together with a poofy cloud shape. You SWEEP the cloud shape to taper/flare the root form into the trunk.

I made one years ago but am told it doesn't work in V10.

[Laszlo Nagy]

I think the RULED or RULED {2} commands can be used in GDL. You would have to define two curves that would be located on two parallel planes.
Maybe the Column should be modeled using two pieces: the upper piece is a round column, and the lower pieces is the one that would flare out.

[Dwight]

No time to figure it out further.
Attached is embarassing code fragment to do the trick.



CONE hgt, brad/2, trad/2, 90, 90


MULX A/1.125
MULY B/1.177


SWEEP 25, 5,10, stmpflr, 62,
-0.407499, -0.322288, 1,
-0.258684, -0.382795, 900,
0.0, 167.2016, 4001,
-0.126969, -0.474765, 1,
0.106316, -0.375139, 900,
0.0, 164.996, 4001,
0.357439, -0.339304, 1,
0.271734, -0.030916, 900,
0.0, 119.2651, 4001,
0.498865, 0.194606, 1,
0.133436, 0.210387, 900,
0.0, 103.0921, 4001,
0.06603, 0.569892, 1,
-0.055944, 0.482556, 900,
0.0, 120.5257, 4001,
-0.193129, 0.543264, 1,
-0.260393, 0.40047, 900,
0.0, 120.4189, 4001,
-0.417588, 0.386176, 1,
-0.242902, 0.128576, 900,
0.0, 71.6359, 4001,
-0.542418, 0.043944, 1,
-0.369185, -0.100205, 900,
0.0, 119.9755, 4001,
-0.407499, -0.322288, -1,

0,0,0,
0,0,.2*stmpht,
0,0,.5*stmpht,
0,0,.8*stmpht,
0,0, stmpht

[Red]

Thanks Dwight that was VERY helpful. I've already added to my drawing. Thanks again for the help that was beyond my GDL abilities.

[Dwight]

bill in mail.

The problem is NOT GDL.
That is an easy object to make - five variable, one object call (CONE), one command (SWEEP).
It was no challenge for you to place the code and create the variables in the script.
The problem is that do this you need to visualize the possibilities of such a limiting Geometric language and understand that objects can be inside another (cheating, to a purist) without blowing up the system. You also need to know that 2D shapes can be turned into 3D path instructions by subverting a script.

[David Collins]

Dwight wrote:
The problem is NOT GDL.

I can't resist the opening here to amplify a bit.
Dammit-Jim-I'm-an-architect types can ignore.

GDL gurus raise the bar way to high for the rest of us. There is no shame in learning just a few simple tricks in GDL and ignoring anything that defies comprehension.

Learn: How to move and rotate the origin. How to think in x,y,z space. How to auto-script slabs and fills and then to transform them to more complex objects. The basics of organizing a script with subroutines. How to create parameters for key dimensions and materials.

Cheerfully Ignore: Loops, put-get, complicated drop down lists and graphic interfaces, 2d fragments, status codes, cutplanes, property lists, scripts for text and material definitions, curves in polylines. Call. Special hotspots. All this can become clear when you need it. If ever.

GDL scripting is simple and easy. And you can do anything.

[Dwight]

With all respect due a beloved colleague who we will look up when we come over to mooch off Constantine, problem-solving for objects is a distinctly different skill than making the universal parametric object in GDL.

Take the tree trunk object… please.

You can't make an irregular shape like that without understanding what GDL's Prescribed Commands can achieve, but it still requires imagination to put these seriously-limited form tools to work.

Another issue is finding a form generator. I used a cloud shape - a series of connected arcs - to make the bulbous roots - drawing them in 2D and converting the 2D fill code into a path. Just try doing that with polygon nodes!

My point is that while I only have ordinary GDL skills, it is exploiting the simple things that make my objects sing. Or grunt. Take your pick.

[David Collins]

Dwight wrote:
problem-solving for objects is a distinctly different skill than making the universal parametric object in GDL.

Ah. I seemed to have stepped on your point just the tiniest little bit.
I do that sometimes. Sincerest apologies.

[Steve Jepson]

I would like to underscore Dwights point.

I know noting at all about GLD programing.
I can make anything I want with Archicad.