Constrain rotation

Hi guys,

I m doing a wall with the same type of brick but i´d like to rotate them randomly by 90 deg.

I am thinking rotation with a type of π constrain .

I would be rotation limited to -90 ° 90° 180° 270°

Any idea in order to start, please.

Anjy

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Arthur Mamou-Mani on March 28, 2012 at 11:28am

You're welcome, does the last answer help more?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ayg011 on March 28, 2012 at 11:31am

I've been fair in my assessment, im struggling to see where 'hate' can be attributed to anything I've posted. And I did state 'real-life' projects; my stance is on functionality in professional practice, not diploma work in the featured images. And that is where GH becomes unsuitable without employing other software and extraction processes to make only its output useful (i.e. at this stage you cant then go back and make changes, it will be a manual process from that point on).

GC on the other had does not have this limitation as it is based in a CAD environment (unlike Rhino / GH) so to reiterate my point, it can be used through the entire life-cycle of a project in practice.

My main concern is that the close-ended style of GH is going to trigger a generation of designers to plan their creativity around components they know exist in the software (so a tower becomes this identikit style of architecture that 'twists', or has a hexagonal parametric skin etc), rather then seeing it as a tool to realise whatever their imagination can think of (the beauty and strength of GC)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannes Löschke on March 28, 2012 at 2:05pm

Rhino is unusable to architects mostly because of it's destructive way of creating sections and 2d drawings. This is a mayor drawback and there are add-ons to overcome this problem.

I don't know about the Bentley line of software, but frankly, I am yet to see any CAD software, that doesn't involve manual work at some point. So the point where you need to go back and readjust manually might shift. It still is there IMHO.

What a tool is capable of and what people make off it is totally unrelated. GH is very appealing to beginner and intermediate users. Those will stick to the land, they are familiar with. So yes, GH stuff is likely to look like tutorial B reloaded. But this is in no way the end of it.

If GC was more accessible, you'd see the exact same tendency.

... and frankly, I'd claim there is no design on the GC page, that is impossible to create with GH components. (with the possible exception of easy final detailling)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jon Mirtschin on March 28, 2012 at 2:17pm

Most projects lock off a generative model at some stage of design development, at least that's my experience. In some ways it's a risk that an input is inadvertently changed and not detected at a very late stage.

I have a lot of private contact with professional GH users, and I would say it's rare they are members (let alone participating) on this forum (but I'm sure a lot research/read) so photo galleries on here are not particularly representative of real world projects that are assisted by Grasshopper.

And I wish I could post more of some of the advanced models being developed, right through to fabrication (steel cut, welded, bolted and installed). There are a few projects being worked on where Grasshopper generated part arrangements are sent directly to software such as Tekla where NC fabrication (or more traditional fabrication from automatically generated shop drawings) is directly derived. Hopefully more details become available soon.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Hannes Löschke on March 28, 2012 at 7:23am

You, my friend should start to know GH before posting bulls*t.

I assume, Anjy wants some unrotated bricks in his wall too. Since GH creates a new copy for each operation, omitting the 0° rotation would result in either a wall with holes where unrotated bricks should be, or a wall with only rotated bricks. You could separate the lists for rotated and unrotated bricks and combine the liste afterward. But if you know a litte about programming, you might realize that this can actually create more overhead, than duplicating a simple box geometry.

Creating a new copy might seem redundant at frist. This will hold true until you understand GH and know how to optimize and streamline your code. As GH can combine transformations, you can move and rotate the bricks on one step. So no more additional bricks, no more overhead.

Again, I have to apologize for my slightly aggressive tone, but seenig you just registered here to boast about GC...

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ayg011 on March 28, 2012 at 8:08am

I've used both packages an adequate length of time to pass a fair critical viewpoint, and on real-world projects (i program in c# to correct your assumption, i dont place objects in a work space and pretend to be doing the same thing). I have visited the forum for quite a while, so to try and imply that my registering history somehow has a bearing on my preferences to these two software packages only further satisfies my viewpoint on an individual that struggles with articulation and thus is reduced to using inappropriate interjections. At this point I should make it clear that to use GC proficiently requires a keen ambition and a clear thought process.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Danny Boyes on March 28, 2012 at 8:33am

Before this degrades any further into an edith.com mud slinging incident, there's only one solution in my mind.

Each of you have to produce a definition that answers Andre-Jacques original question. That way everyone's a winner. Andre-Jacques, gets his answer. Hannes redeems himself as a helpful individual and ayg011 proves his long established understanding of grasshopper.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ayg011 on March 28, 2012 at 8:36am

Surely GC and GH would be better to give Andre a more critical viewpoint?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Danny Boyes on March 28, 2012 at 8:41am

If you would like to add an additional GC version, please do.

But that's not what is at stake for you. :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by ayg011 on March 28, 2012 at 8:43am

I'm sorry, is this a job interview? :)

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Luis Fraguada on March 28, 2012 at 8:46am

If I may chime in?

If all agree to Danny's suggestion, I would also love to understand the workflow for such a thing in GC. ayg011, could you post a bit about how such a task is manageable in GC? I ask because its been a while since I really worked in GC (2006!?) and I think it would be a great addition to steer the conversation in a more positive direction. Perhaps it is not the right task to perform in GC, but I think it helps to see how two tools differ in workflow, effort, etc. Would anyone else find this helpful?