Wow thank you for taking the time adding that detailed information. Really help enrich the learning experience. Thank you for the comment.

You're very welcome, Glad your enjoying 😊

Just coming back, is there a way to map the surface without wrapping? Obviously that is what results in the need for exploding the cuts, and you can use some math to make it all work out, BUT either a way to fix the exploded cut faces so that they will be a complete STL files upon exporting or cutting off wrapping would be awesome, if you know of it.

Glad you enjoyed it! :)

I do have another video of a different method that may help. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/a7Z7gMxencvTnnU.html

Glad it was helpful! And glad your learning 😁

Great to hear, thank you

It's always good to try it yourself rather than relying on other people's macros, also it opens up the opportunity to use other geometry. Making it parametric is a great way to go. As you say you need to calculate the gap as well as the amounts of shapes across the unwrapped face which would be the csame as the circumference.

Glad it solves your challenge and thank you for feeding back. Good to hear your enjoying them 😁

@@MangoJellySolutions I subscribed to your channel because I find your way of explaining things very pleasant, no annoying background music, easy to follow with a pleasant tone of voice, clearly articulated, just like a proficient teacher should be. Keep up the excellent work!

If I have it pictured in my head you could make the flat mesh and Extrude this in part along another sketch which is just a straight line at the angle and distance you want to travel. Or use make face from part on the hexagons rather than extruding. Do this twice and create a multi Ioft from curves workbench between both. You can position the second face were you want to make the desired angle.

@@MangoJellySolutions Yeah, I can see that first one easily enough. I printed a home humidifier I designed, but the one weakness is the paper "Wick" I used from standard humidifiers. Those fail from mineral buildup in a month or two from conventional use, but my design uses an aquarium pump to pour water on them from the top like some of the "Permanent wick" models. So far so good, but after four or five months, they get a little slimy from being constantly wet. I figure a plastic one I can safely wash without destroying is a better solution. (The permanent ones are made from expanded aluminum foil, coated with some kind of material that helps retain water on them, but they are delicate and cleaning them can damage them). You've probably seen conventional expanded steel, where a sheet of steel is given alternating slots, then stretched to give the mesh pattern to it. Typically that is flattened. The wick material tends to bend upwards as it is stretched. I think a similar material is used instead of wooden lath to support plaster or stucco walls. The wicks use that technique with absorbent paper, and form it around a single foil layer as well. That is trickier to model because the angle they would extrude is different at each segment. But if I can just approximate it that should be enough to hold the water in the airstream to evaporate.

Sounds awesome 👍

I , also, use spreadsheets to vary parameters of parts to see the success or error of my concepts.

Thank you. Yeh this world be a bit of a pain to fillet. With the tube I don't think you can get around it without selecting the edges. With the planner mesh on the other hand you can use lattice 2 and create a single hexagon, fillet and then lattice. I am sobering now if you can apply the same techniques to a tube. 🤔I will have an experiment. 👍

It does, I was looking for this video to wrap it a hex pattern around conical slice and it worked perfectly!

So this is a good question. Part and part design under the hood are basically the same in how they end up creating a solid, and that's the key thing to remember "a solid". Where the part design breaks down is to create a faster workflow your operations need to create a solid as each time as they are automatically fused with the previous operation. The part workflow requires this to be done manually. This allows freedom of creating surfaces, shells and what I find the most useful of all, compounds, collection of objects. The lattice relies heavily on compounds as it uses arrays of objects. A text string can be exploded in part wb, isolating the individual letters, a extrude with a sketch that has 4 seperate rectangles though is one extrude is still a compound. Part design is great for straightforward modelling especially when you have a plan, but it breaks down when you want to the 'tricky' side of things as it requires all geometry to touch reducing its flexibility . It's funny you should bring this up as I just finished editing a video on that exact subject 😊

@@MangoJellySolutions That makes sense, thank you! Since I've learned we can extrude sketches in Part all the same and don't have to carefully cut spheres out of cubes, it doesn't seem as different. Haha, you are reading thoughts again :) Looking forward for that video too!

Lol, I will be preparing for an email soon 😁😁😁

I've seen this before when measuring part design and it confused the hell out of me for ab hour. What I found is that when I rotated my view the measurement had connected to a point in space behind so it was off in the distance though it looked like it was aligned . Found clicking on a vertexes when measure helps. I don't know if this is the same issues as what you are having.

Good question, if you had a shape that say has a series of bumps and hollows but following a similar curvature then you can follow the same process but at the last step hide the cylinder / tube and perform the cut against the target object. Your looking at how the hexagons flow and using a simple object first then cutting against the more complex object can be enough to create the effect you need

Could you tell me which cut is failing. Was it the first one where you cut away the compound extrude from the sphere? It may be that you need the sphere slightly larger.

@@MangoJellySolutions I tried the whole thing once again and now it worked out. Thank you!

@@MangoJellySolutions it was the cut from the tube, didn’t work the first time.

Lol... I think I might have to start doing the lottery!

The box you would need to do each face independently of each other. The thing is as you found the interlinking of sides. Guessing you want a nice clean transition so these need to link up correctly. You could use a shape binder and Extrude the hex mesh for all sides. May be worth playing with path arrays. Looks like I need to experiment.

@@MangoJellySolutions thank you. It's really tricky. Also when you use B-Splines to create a face, it doesn't work with the wrapping (at least: to me. But I'm not knowledgeable like you are, so certainly i wrong steps). I'm getting crazy. P.S. Following your tutorials I was able to make things that were not imaginable to me before. Thank you so much for this.

@@MangoJellySolutions I tagged you in the forum and I uploaded the surface (it's a solid but I need its surface) to be meshed in the way we're talking. So this should be more understandable.

Just draw triangles instead of hexagons.

The grid pattern is open to any sort of geometry. The curves workbench has an iso curves that you can add to your surface but that's all it is. I am experimenting with this to see what else can be done with it.