algorithmic modeling for Rhino
This is pretty much exactly question 7b:
You're going to have to be more specific about what aspect of the model you need help with, and share what you've already done yourself. It doesn't have to be GH files, photographs of napkin algorithms are also welcome.
Thanks for the reply, and yes i should clarify that i'm a beginner in gh and rhino generally and i wanted to know how could any beginner use GH to create such a form (with the ribs like the lilly pad) as an efficient structure.I'm mainly interested in doing and experimenting with organic structure like this but i need to know where and how to start(if there is a certain plug in other than galapgos and karamba? or without the plug ins) yes i know it won't look like the final professional projects but i want to see the first step to doing things like that then i can experiment later on.
Other than the disastrous aesthetics of these ... er ... creations ... I would strongly suggest to try to get the gist of the whole GH thing with far more simpler cases. Let's say 100 times simpler to be accurate, he he.
Understanding the way that GH organizes data (Lists, Trees: NOT Lists of Lists of Lists ...) is the most critical thing: 90+% of the questions posted in the Forum are related with poor (or partially faulty or totally faulty) management of data.
On the other hand and in the long term (if your intentions with algorithmic/parametric design are "permanent") learning some programming language is unavoidable: we are just approaching the vantage point of a new era (dawn not even happened) and in a few years from now anyone NOT knowing C#/VB/P/Whatever he could be classified as totally uneducated.
Well, I think I have to disagree here.
I know a lot of people with amazing skills in analytical, geometrical and conceptual thinking being heavily involved in algorithmic/parametric design without being able to program. I don't think that you necessarily need to be able to write code in whatever language to get noticed in the future, it's rather about a deeper understanding of how parametrical design approaches can influence and enrich your design.
On the other hand there are also a lot of people with programming skills and no sense for above mentioned abilities. Results are often rather poor as you might have realized. Nowadays it is very easy to create any sorts of shape that look astonishingly complex and meaningful, but with no underlying layer of intelligence.
So I think the best way to live a happy and long life on the parametric side is not to learn how, but when and what for you can use algorithmic design. Learning to program is only one little step of this process, but by far not the most important.
You've missed the point:
Let's roll it again: Practices in the future would become corporations in the very same way that Pininfarina/Bertone/Giugiaro are replaced by a myriad of anonymous Toyota designers (this explains a lot about car design these days: camel is a horse ... blah blah). In plain English: no Ferrari 250 GTO anymore ... buy a Ferrari Italia and be a happy(?) bunny.
Back to AEC: Individuals (or small practices) may still exist but ... they'll extinct sooner or later. It's the Brave New World (or the Animal Farm depending on your point of view).
Now the 1M question: given your position in any such practice ... by what means you think that you'll communicate and/or steer and/or lead and/or own and/or ... the groups of people required for the job?
I mean: look freaks, I have a very good idea ... blah blah. Freaks: Sorry boss this can't being done.
Anyway, if your answer/thesis is that you don't care because you are in the "ideas" sector whilst the "freaks" are in the other side ... take my advise: this is a recipe for extinction (sooner or later).
Given the opportunity: you ain't see NOTHING (yet) from what is galloping: all the things that you think "amazing" would become naive "sketches" in the very same sense that a Ford Model T ... is a bit ... well ... "basic" , he he.
Moral: you can't ride properly fast a bike without knowing anything about the mechanics/electronics involved.
Being one of those "freaks" myself I really enjoy working with "bosses" who have at least a feeling of what I am talking about - or if not, who are able to trust me and my "freak knowledge" to a certain extend.
The huge problem I experience is people that resist to take at least a look at the parametric world and the people involved. There is a strange mix between fascination and fear to loose control over a project that follows rules of code - as if it would get it's own life suddenly. And this fear can only be overcome by opening yourself to analytical, geometrical and conceptual thinking. And of course, great if your boss knows how to program, but I think being a really good freak is a fulltime job - at least I don't manage to be a freak and a boss at the same time. So I would rather leave the design steering to others.
I think as professionals get more and more specialized it is essential to redefine communication from both sides. We cannot hide behind our glasses and screens and hope that someone is lucky enough to understand what we are thinking...
This is probably currently the best place to start: http://modelab.is/grasshopper-primer/. I would suggest forgetting about plug-ins for now and just focus on Grasshopper. Then slowly build up complexity with things like Galapagos (once you understand where and why a stochastic optimization method would be useful)..
Hi, that is quite a complex building if you just started using GH, I am not a GH expert, but I have been doing architectural design for 7 years. Rhino+GH is always my main modelling tool, so although I am not "expert" enough, I will try to share my opinion.
Judging by the look of the building the simplest way to do it would be using T-spline to create the basic massing (like you try to sculpt a piece of rock to get the silhouette of that building). playing and tweaking mesh is easier in TSPLINE rather than NURBS (in this particular shape). after you've got the basic model done, convert it to NURBS then you can start to use GH to get some complex detail done.
one more advantage is that TSPLINE has special addon for GrassHopper. you can combo them together to get a more unimaginable result.
that is how I would approach the design.
and if you have got extra time,you could rebuild the model from scratch in GH, to get a much "tidier" model. and if next time you do a real project, it is also important to have someone to work on "smart" model like BIM. otherwise the engineer would get a massive headache when he receive your 3D model.
May be this is not a popular opinion, but I think sometimes you don't have to force yourself to build everything entirely in GH. if you can build the basic geometry in rhino, then it is better. afterall GH main function is a modelling aid for rhino. sketching it first on a piece of paper would help to get a better understanding about the geometry you are after. and then you'd know what to do.
one more thing, regarding about one reply, I wanna say, there is a big difference between designers and 3d modeller. as an architect and a designer myself, when I am given a task to design a building, sometimes I dont know what the building is going to look like at the early stage of the design., I prefer a less technical method and keep it as "concept" as possible (as there are many other things we need to think at once, name it, functionality, spacial use, structure, cost, environmental impact,etc etc etc, even politics and government stuff :P)
learning C#/VB/ or other language sure will be a point plus for you. but as dominik nuessen have mentioned, a good understanding of geometry and how it relates to the parametric design is the key point here.
because a good building is born from countless of planning and discussion, do not be afraid to be "wild" during the early stage. remember, some of the greatest architect in the world came from people who are dare enough to connect their dream into the real world.
thats all :) sorry for my bad english :)
非常热心 的解答帮助 我等楷模