a few days ago, I already introduced myself at the e-nable G+ group, and I’m ready now to step deeper in the technical issues. After finishing my first printed hand (flexy hand 2) I’m totally addicted to this project now.
Just a few sentences about my motivation to work with you at e-nable. I’m graduating in New Media / Interface Design this semester and have to write my bachelor thesis. At my university, the graduation project is divided in two parts. The thesis and a practice project. The second part is why i’m here. As project I decided to work for this community and try to help to push the parametric design part.
I’d like to present to you my current thoughts and planned way of how parametric design could be integrated step by step for a hand prosthesis. As I was reading a few of the forum topics, I saw that your currently addressed improvements through parametric design are the following points:
- Constant hole diameters for the screws and for the nylon strings
- Possibility to use ‚of the shelf‘ parts
- Constant clearances between the parts especially at joints
- More flexibility in scaling
I’ve seen Andreas’ great work in fusion 360, which focuses on exactly these points. Am I right that these are the main points that you’ll currently try to improve, or are there any further aspects, I’ve missed?
It would be really nice if you could give me some feedback / or a link to other topics, that I’ve overlooked, about whats the current state of your works at parametric design.
What do you think about a top-down approach to the development of parametrized 3D models?
- Step: Individual scaleable parts
- As Andreas did for the proximal phalanges ( viewtopic.php?f=7&t=140&p=1061&hilit=parametric#p1061 )
- Step: parts are scaleable referencing to more abstract (in relation to the 3D Model) values. The proportions and dimensions of the body of the recepient.
- For Example: length and diameters of fingers fitted to the unaffected hand. / copying the unaffected hand
- As it is already partly done in hand-o-matic (http://webapp.e-nable.me/v1.0/)
- Step: High level of abstraction for the parameters.
- Based on statistical data like for example: viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7&p=10#p10
- Setting the age of the recipient to get a first approximation to the sizes.
- Focusing on individual factors of the recipient, to optimize the prosthesis
- If the generated Model is not fitting, it can be adjusted through the lowest level of parametrization (which will be hardest to learn and master).
Possible problems occuring:
- We are not really flexible. For example cases where the thumb or other fingers are not affected have to be considered.
- What problems do you see, comming with this approach?
What do you think about this general ideas?
I know, that most of you are using fusion 360, is anyone using rhino + grasshopper, or is fusion a killer criterion? Since I’m not really experienced with fusion I’m not sure about how far the abstraction of parameters is possible. It would be awesome if you could give me some feedback to this issue as well.
Thanks for your feedback,