That is always an option, but not a very precise and controllable process.. Nothing that I am after when I want to design something with hexagons.. I wanted the ability to steer how wide the openings and thick the walls of the hexagons were..
I love your videos. Apparently, you're the only RUclipsr that make mistakes, but don't care. It's a relief, I thought I was the only one who did the things wrong 😂. I have learned a lot today. Thanks.
You have no idea how nice it is to get such messages :) I could include a ton more mistakes and moments of confusion.. I think you a point there.. Most videos on RUclips are scripted start to finish and only show the shiny end result and the painful path to this result is invisible.. Again thx a million for reaching out.. Most appreciated..
After making the honeycomb grid manually from scratch - measuring distances between grids, adjusting angles, wall thickness etc. This feels like cheating. Thanks for the tutorial.
You can actually still save two more steps! Instead of extruding the "tool body" and intersecting with that, and then doing another union, you can immediately choose the "intersect" type extrusion with the outer profile right after unioning the outline and hexes. This leaves you with a single body that's exactly what you want. I think this is what the comment at 15:07 was trying to say. So the total history up to that point is 1) sketch outline 2) extrude outline 3) sketch hex 4) extrude hex 5) pattern hexes 6) union outline+hexes 7) extrude/intersect outline
Another thing. I don't know if I'm going to explain it properly. I've realized that the hexagons splitted between two frames don't match with the hexagon in the frame next. I'm thinking that if you set the diameter of the hexagon as a division of the size of the frame, it would fit perfectly, wouldn't it?
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
Even simpler if you plan on 3d printing. Make a solid box. Remove top and bottom layers and just set a hexagonal infill.
That is always an option, but not a very precise and controllable process.. Nothing that I am after when I want to design something with hexagons.. I wanted the ability to steer how wide the openings and thick the walls of the hexagons were..
I love your videos. Apparently, you're the only RUclipsr that make mistakes, but don't care. It's a relief, I thought I was the only one who did the things wrong 😂. I have learned a lot today. Thanks.
You have no idea how nice it is to get such messages :) I could include a ton more mistakes and moments of confusion.. I think you a point there.. Most videos on RUclips are scripted start to finish and only show the shiny end result and the painful path to this result is invisible..
Again thx a million for reaching out.. Most appreciated..
Very nice!!! It even works like a sound trap, some kind of difuzor.❤
After making the honeycomb grid manually from scratch - measuring distances between grids, adjusting angles, wall thickness etc. This feels like cheating. Thanks for the tutorial.
Haha I know exactly what you mean :) Thx mate..
finally a helpful hex pattern tutorial
You can actually still save two more steps! Instead of extruding the "tool body" and intersecting with that, and then doing another union, you can immediately choose the "intersect" type extrusion with the outer profile right after unioning the outline and hexes. This leaves you with a single body that's exactly what you want. I think this is what the comment at 15:07 was trying to say.
So the total history up to that point is 1) sketch outline 2) extrude outline 3) sketch hex 4) extrude hex 5) pattern hexes 6) union outline+hexes 7) extrude/intersect outline
Yes, the intersection step wasn't fully optimal :-)
I just tried replicating it in OnShape and in that case, you do need the extra union step as far as I can tell
Another thing. I don't know if I'm going to explain it properly. I've realized that the hexagons splitted between two frames don't match with the hexagon in the frame next. I'm thinking that if you set the diameter of the hexagon as a division of the size of the frame, it would fit perfectly, wouldn't it?
Yes, it must be a division without remainder... I didn't pay attention to that detail, but worked out okish