algorithmic modeling for Rhino
Hi I am an absolute beginner in Grasshopper. But it seems to be the answer to all my wet dreams about parametric modelling.
I am viewing
when I open the Line component it doesnt look like the one in the tutorial. I dont have an A ,B and L on the Line component. Just the word Line.
And when i set a line in Rhino. It doesn't show up on the screen.
What am I missing?
there are many line components, according to input needed to draw them.
since you are trying to create a line you need to go to the curve tab / primitive and choose the one you need. from the input description it looks like you need line sdl or line to plane.
the one you are using from your description must be a line container component, coming from parameter/ geometry which is mainly used to reference lines from rhino viewport, or store lines coming from previous operation in gh.
This is algorithm modeling, not parametric modeling. The relevant thing is to edit process, not what feeds it. If you hear about parametric modeling as a CAD paradigm, escape fast from there. They may not have noticed something as obvious as it is a bad term, or they may be carried away by the current or they may have no idea, in any case, flees fast. xD
Well, if the component icon has a black hexagonal background, then it is not what you are looking for. Double click on the canvas, type line and look what there is. You will give with what you are looking for.
Sorry. lots of new words.
found the right icon
back to work
thanks for the answer
Well it depends on how the term is used. Not everything belongs in the same bucket.
Sure but I think that if you talk about paradigm (as parametric modelling; type of modeling, about how it is modeled, not about the model itself) then it does not make sense to talk about parameters. The parameters are in the interface level, and a paradigm can not be defined by its interface, if so, is not a paradigm. Working with parameters does not change anything to deserve a name, what changes how you work is to edit the process explicitly. But anyway, it's just a term.
I will give a chance to the reading, to see if I can understand why it is not as clear to others as for me, thank you.
yes we agree, i think there is lots ambiguity around the term, while many times its use is hype based.
its a nice read, with imho valid arguments. In the end somehow he deconstructs the use of the term from many writers.