algorithmic modeling for Rhino

I'm new to grasshopper. I found grasshopper has changed quite a lot. It's hard to follow the examples of the primer's books (The Grasshopper Primer_Second Edition.pdf )which was written with version 0.6.0059. When writting VB scripts, I can't get the classs like On3dPoints. Should I use that version(I'm somewhat unwilling to do that) for learning, or is there an migration guide available?

So I'm here expecting guides from you.

Views: 444

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Hi Yujun,

I highly recommend you use the new Script components, but if you want the old (LEGACY) script components are still available from the dropdown list.

David Rutten
Poprad, Slovakia
I would expect guides for a program I pay for...but GH is beta, and its given to us at a great! The main primer, along with various others, are done by users on their free time. They get no monetary compensation for it...they just do it out of the goodness of their souls. I agree it would be great to have revisions, but expecting something from a software thats been given to you for free is a bit demanding no? Maybe you can write the new version?
I have been following Grasshopper far back when it was called Explicit History and it has taken me a long time to get proficient enough to do things but I am still not there at the level I would like to be - be able to write & incorporate scripts. I can't get my hear around it and maybe I am just not the scripting type mentally but I don't loose sleep over it, I just get a little frustrated.

On one hand I am 100% behind Luis: Grasshopper is 100% free and that's just the the best, irrespective of the the fact there is no 'user manual'. I have read through the Primers and all of the documents that others have take time to put together for the rest of us, but in the end my biggest learning came from looking at others work, explanations and ghx files - when they kindly post it.

In the beginning it was very frustrating when people would show their final result and not give an indication or explanation of their approach. Ideally you wanted to see their ghx file so that you could see how they did it and test and experiment, but that was not always the case - I am not sure if people were/are worried their 'ideas' will be stolen or something, it give off that kind of impression, which is absurd since that's not even the point. The learning curve was steep but I am at a stage now where I do my own thing and get enjoyment and interest just messing about and learning as I go.

I am happy to compromise the lack of a user manual for having Grasshopper free for all. It is a brilliant deal and feel very happy that it is so. The discussion forum is packed full of information, hints and tips on how to do things. Not everything is there but enough to get you to surface population heaven and back. I do get irritate by the way some people crash through the discussion forum asking for others to 'help them out' i.e. sort their definitions or more so 'just tell me how to do it'. It drives me up the wall and not because I had to get there the hard way but because it is just lazy. I will refrain from saying any more about this matter.

As always keep up the excellent work David et al and thanks for all the serious fun & fun fun that Grasshopper brings. It is ACE!

I also did come across it when it was in its explicit history and at first did not understand its full potential until Carlos demonstrated the staircase example. Then everything fell into place and I have not looked back since. Well done David
Thank you David, thanks to every one.
This is my first question in the forum. I already got the universal answer: It's great work to create GH, and it's just happiness to explore it. I'm on my way.
All of this being said Yujun, somehow I share some of your initial thoughts, especially when teaching. Really, the updated manual is this forum. The problem is that the knowledge is completely distributed in a very disorganized, serial manner. Maybe there is a different platform for documentation that the community could have a part in developing? Like a wiki site. If we all put as much energy into an organized, updatable resource as we do this forum, then we have something interesting. Surely there would be issues, just like Wikipedia has issues with content, but our scope is much smaller. Anyone have any suggestions for something like this?
exactly. something like processing wiki site:
with contribution from users
Where would one start learning processing using this wiki though ? At least with the primer one can start with Page 1. The primer is still very relevant as Luis it is just a matter of updating it with the latest tools and plugins such as Weaverbird, Kangaroo...etc...

Maybe we can add the relevant question/answers which came out of the forum to the primer ? We already have so much material here...
but the primer is a snapshot at a certain point. It is absolutely relevant! In a wiki, anyone with a few minutes could update a section...
Any volunteer ? Yujun ? :)
I think we need to keep all the eggs in one basket. Maybe there should be a FAQs category in the forum like the Samples and examples but only stuff that has been vetted in the main discussion forum can be placed there as a definitive answer and have no further replies to keep it simple and to the point but still allow the contributor to edit it. I have a whole bunch of stuff that I can offer up to get it started.

I know in GH there are too many ways to achieve the same result, but this would be a good way of installing some 'best practices' for future users. I know i've been convinced many times to change my ways.
very good idea as it will also prevent asking twice the same questions. The FAQ category could refer to existing discussions. Some of them are really "wiki-like":
Should we tell Scott Davidson ?






  • Add Photos
  • View All

© 2019   Created by Scott Davidson.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service