algorithmic modeling for Rhino
I was involved in a smallish debate recently about if code is the "right" way to do business (VS GH components):
Anyway I'm the lest person to provide advises about what each user should do, but in case that you are considering Plan B ... here's a sampling of some (already posted I believe) 30 C# cases in a vast variety of complexity (out of about 315 available).
I'm not saying that GH is a fail, I'm saying that data management is far easier with code VS components, especially in real life complex cases developed by teams (the environment where a novice could end-up sooner or later).
PS: I have absolutely no urge to may any point of mine (to gain what exactly?)
Come on, mate! If you dislike GH so much you really are in the wrong place!
I don't think David won an award because gh did things better than C# or whatever. The whole point is that it brought programming to a population of designers who didn't know they could use it. People such as me.
I am an architect (not an engineer) (a boat designer to be exact).
Not just to mimic your style, but to say that I knew next to nothing about coding. A class D citizen as you put it; the old me thanks you for it by the way.
I originally learned a bit of VB because I had to extend GH - just a little, as there was no [Extend Surface] yet. Then I made a loop for a stadium riser (no hoopsnake yet either).
Then I learned a little bit of c#... made my own components in VS...
And today I'm developing phone apps. You know, games with sprites and sounds and AI, classes and sub classes and all the things we love!
I wouldn't be here today without gh, without the gh community. And I never was "attacked" by any component :))
I AM pissed off, sorry to say (not much though!). I'm so fond of gh and so grateful to it that seeing someone throwing bold chars at it and diminishing the users' intellect, all for the sole pleasure of making his point, kind of upsets me.
Can I say that your voice matches your picture perfectly? Coincidences are to be expected, but every single one should be doubted...
PS: I have absolutely no urge to may any point of mine (to gain what exactly?)
Correction then :
I AM pissed off, sorry to say (not much though!). I'm so fond of gh and so grateful to it that seeing someone throwing bold chars at it and diminishing the users' intellect, all for the sole pleasure of making his point all for no reason, kind of upsets me.
Ok, we run out of space for replies so I am continuing here...
You have emphatically stated, many times, that you no longer use gh components and consider this approach primitive and only suitable for design-happy students etc... (I hope you will agree this is your general stance on this forum and we will not have to start quoting from past posts).
So it's not just a data management issue, is it?
And again, I am not getting into the debate about what is the best way to do stuff. This is totally not the point here, instead I am trying to point out that this is just the wrong place.
I have been an autocad user for many years and, being recently introduced to GH, I have come to realize so many weaknesses about autocad. Still, I wouldn't go spamming in an autocad forum and posting replies that use GH (or, for a better analogy, posting lisp routines for problems that can be solved with simple autocad commands).
And finally about something you said in a previous post:
I never said that you should get problems from the general discussion and post their replies on the coding forum. I simply suggested that if you don't want to use GH components any more, then maybe it would be better to ignore the general discussion forum and stick to the coding sub-forum.
Anyway, I am not a mod and don't want to sound like one, I just thought you should know how other users feel about your practice.
ps. about your ps, I never implied that you have some kind of profit to make, just that during the discussion your arguments have led you to completely disregard what GH is all about
Hmm Nicos ... (cyclic logic detected: abort or retry? he he)
I NEVER said that using components it's a primitive approach (on a per se basis) ... BUT I stated (a bit crabwise, he he) many times that THIS approach may guide "novices" into trouble IF AND WHEN they'll become part of a (non Academic) design schema (i.e. partners/employees in the practice of tomorrow). That said tomorrow is maybe already yesterday (but who's counting?).
I ALSO stated many times that I see/judge GH as a tool within an arsenal of tools required solely for AEC matters (I repeat: SOLELY AEC matters). Tools ranging from CATIA to AECOSim etc etc. Is this Spam? Is insulting to speak the truth that Rhino is NOT an AEC app? Is insulting to mention Generative Components/Dynamo (Robert Aish did them both) in this Noble Forum? Is Spam to post pics from things made with other apps whilst even the most ignorant knows that practices use A LOT OF APPS these days? (and no app is around that "does-it-all"). Is Spam to post some "live" stuff (if that abandoned 3dPDF poor thing is "live") in order to outline the complexity of contemporary design(s) and thus pointing the obvious?.
By what means all the above are insulting for the GH product on a per se basis? By what means providing a solution with code is insulting for the user in trouble?
Hard to understand why these (true) facts are so "extreme" and caused a couple of reactions.
So the (so far) average conclusion is that opening a (potential) window to some other "option" (the freaky one) is the wrong stuff in the wrong place (use components at any cost otherwise quit game and/or ignore the request for help (put it in the "why bother?" class and go ride some proper Ducati) : since you don't understand the beauty of the beast) and some (or maybe all) users are pissed-off (having completely misunderstood the big picture, the small picture or even a tiny part of it anyway).
Moral: never talk about waterstart to someone uphauling his rig (off shore winds blowing).
for the sake of this conversation please don't refer to what other people have said when replying to me. I never said I was pissed off, I never said what you do is insulting for the GH product... so I can't reply to most of your questions... The people that made these points can.
So, to the ones I can reply:
I believe you are twisting my words when you say I suggested you shouldn't speak about code in here. A post about code vs components would be more than welcome by anyone in this forum. Personally I would be very interested in a well documented presentation of coding inside gh, stating pros and cons, giving some examples etc... But throwing unreadable (by most novice users, myself included) posts and solutions is not something I appreciate.
and again, stating "I see GH as an AEC tool" tells me nothing. If I see GH as part of a toolset for composing music, I would still look weird posting replies that require a synth...
Anyway, to make it more clear,
moral: never talk about waterstart to someone who asks for help setting up his rig (no matter the wind direction)
so, yes, we seem to be saying the same things over and over so... Abort
"Is insulting to speak the truth that Rhino is NOT an AEC app?"
I think here's where your perspective is limited. Of course Rhino + GH are capable of being incredibly robust AEC apps, and can drive legitimate building projects. Generally they are more effective when used as part of a suite of tools, but their flexibility and lightweight nature allows for them to quickly manage a broad range of critical components in large-scale projects. It may well be your personal experience to use Catia or Solidworks or GC, and indeed, these are incredible tools useful for a number of applications.
But it's no secret that you're a rather bombastic fellow, and increasingly your statements seem to reflect that GH might be entertaining, but that it's not meant to be serious beyond the sketch (again, "GH is NOT an AEC app"). This may be your practice, but many of us don't share your experience, and make plenty of good use of GH on quite complex building projects. You might be shocked to learn. With collaboration! Between people of varying skill level using such tools! Some of whom are designers, and others engineers!
As a visual scripting tool, GH enables rapid connections of multiple libraries and encourages exploration - serious work, mind you - that all can scale up in the same platform. Team members who work intuitively with components can build up particular ideas that get fleshed out by coders who can share it with others using analysis tools/data converters for understanding and communicating performance data to customers and internal reviewers. Indeed, smart people in a great number of practices use GH as a clearinghouse for not only generating new model information but transferring it between a number of platforms. I've actually seen it happen! It almost boggles the mind.
Yes, pure coding is a wonderful skill to have, and can allow for list management par excellence, nesting and cleaning and matching with the accuracy of a sniper. And hopefully, more people who come to GH will find it a gateway drug to a deeper knowledge of data structures and object libraries and simpler representations.
But time and again you have certainly pooh-poohed GH as a minor player in what you personally seem to consider to be real AEC applications, and I think the backlash you're experiencing here isn't so much because you're misunderstood as that your perspective is a bit tiresome, and - especially to those of us who have found success in deploying it for the management of real and complex projects - lacking in creativity.
From a mountain top via the funicular. With chocolate and coffee. You bastard.
I have been wondering how and if I should chime in with my two cents about this topic.
Part of me feels that whilst the Native Grasshopper bypass approach by Peter is wrong for a GH help forum his intentions are fundamentally spot on for the forum itself i.e. help when it is asked for. And this later aspect should not be sneered at, but the finest quality of GH is that if something is "broken" you can fix it if you know how. Peter clearly has a preference for coding (and motorbikes) which might have been a hindrance in embracing the true beauty of GH before emptying the baby out with the bath water.
I feel when answering questions on the forum a priority should be established in order to best serve the GH User.
1) User Interface: a desire to get the user to make better use of GH by themselves
2) Native Grasshopper Approach: by way of example is essential as after all this is a GH forum
3) Established/Recommended Plug-ins: it pains me to admit that sometimes GH is lacking and other dedicated followers of GH have provided the means to achieve the impossible/non-priorital in the guise of a GH component.
4) VB/C# Script: Last resorts, which I usually leave up to others who are much better qualified in this area.
Peter, because your keenness to help others has possibly jumped your skills up the help priority ladder, I think you should look at the next rung up and develop a GHA plug-in for the weak areas of GH that you see... but don't go re-inventing the wheel. At the same time it wouldn't hurt to revisit the Native Grasshopper solution for your own benefit.
DISLCAIMER: As anything read on the internet or in emails by individuals places the insinuation and emphasis in the mind of the reader and doesn't necessarily convey those of the writer I would like to state for the record that no malice is intended by anything I have written above.