Grasshopper

algorithmic modeling for Rhino

# Square to Circle morph or loft? - solved

Problem solved by one of my friends - ULF EDGREN - for anyone having the same question I have added the file he made called morph.

Hej,

I am trying to define a minimum plane surface by morphing between a rectangular and a circle (both will have defined max length and width) then using galapagos as a key simulation tool to obtain the minimum area - z will be a constant so therefore not relevant).

However I am having problems figuring out the morphing part. I found some discussion from some years back but they are really not that helpful.

If any of you can point me to the right tutorial or shortly explain how to approach this problem I would really appreciate it. Image below is a good schematic of what I expect - it can be even more curvy ;)

I tried loft but I kinda got stuck - and morphing includes the z coordinate which I would like it to be constant and not affect the result so therefore I am guessing approaching just a flat surface would be better.

Views: 6202

Attachments:

### Replies to This Discussion

I do hope that you don't have plans to Loft "flat" placed shapes? eh?

Other than than Lofting is about matching nodes to nodes (and align seams): see this very simple demo (R is the same for clarity) that goes from a rectangle to some polygon that "looks" like a circle.

BTW:There's other far more sophisticated ways to do a "smooth" loft in similar cases.

Attachments:

Spend a few minutes more on that one: I think that the "segmented" Loft (added a tri-mesh  option and an unfinished Plan Z (that indicates the match nodes issue)) is the simplest way to do it  especially if you want a visual clue about the "transactions" (from profile to profile).

Another way is to divide each profile with the same N of nodes > align > Loft apples to apples > etc etc.

Attachments:

Thank you so much, I will give it a try - no, I do not want to loft flat shapes :) I will create a surface after I get the line desired - but first I need to figure out the best way to explain what I want and then to achieve what I want.

Well ... some sketches are a must (and the scope as well: some "smooth" 3d printing on demand? some other thing? some thickened "tube"? what?).

As I said there's a lot of very sophisticated ways to loft things (profiles) with different nodes (and not causing Armageddon) not to mention align planes and "align" seams ... but if you are OK with the tri-mesh (which it can been post processed via the usual WB tools) > keep things simple.

Another 3 minutes spend: added a hint about the divisions "method" mentioned.

No complex "matching" policy used (therefor the seam is visible [but why bother?]) > just divide the profiles and do the thing:

Attachments:

Hej Peter,

The whole loft idea came from this discussion http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/morphing-2d-geometries

However that is from 6 years ago and as I can tell grasshopper has changed a lot - therefore I can not really understand what they did. I really like what you did but you took it too far. I am more interested in the circle and the square points and how you got them to change the shape along the curve. I will dissect your file and see if I can transfer the idea into one plane - as flat as it gets - probably going to take me a while.

What I want to do is this - in simple 2d - I will extrude it after I pick the shape that I like best that can be obtained from this morphing of 2d shapes

And I have managed to do it in a 3d form  see cube (run the galapagos simulator) and the galapagos  files - galapagos will make my shape move from a circle to a whatever shape - but i don't know what parameters I can input before that.

I just need to morph or whatever it is called the base of the future building or/and each level - individually - extruding after and placing in the right position should not be so difficult. I tried with loft before I wrote this post but if you open the file you will see my little disaster - please don't laugh too hard I am still new at this :P - that is also why my explanation of what I want is not that accurate.

Attachments:

Hmm ... building you said?

This means other things (and MAY invite the Dark Force to the party):

... because the resulted surface IT MUST yield some panels (curtain wall in plain English) in a "uniform" way with regard the divisions per floor - other wise I foresee Armageddon. Additionally we are talking strictly about quad panels (in order to avoid the rabbit hole in the curtain wall final layout: small angle triangles that in theory appear doable ... in reality are out of question or a BAD engineering approach anyway).

So the mesh way is out of the question (until Kangaroo 2 is invited to the party for a curtain wall "facets" planarization - unless you have unlimited budget and you are eager to blow millions for no reason).

The big question is: from a scale 1 to 10 what is your all overall experience with GH (and Kangaroo2)?

PS: what has Galapagos to do with all these? Here the main AND primary issue (the curtain wall) exposes totally different kind of issues and ways of addressing this puzzle.

Moral: another pile of worms thread, he he.

Suggestion: forget all these for the moment and provide a sketch of the tower (I guess something that goes from a rectangle to something else).

To answer your question about my skills - I started 5 days ago and going strong - I think I have every tutorial ever made and going constantly through them daily - so I am at the beginning. While following a tutorial is easy and adapting the idea of it again - it's not a fuss - i guess my skills are at 1 - since I can not yet stand alone! However I am very determined to nail this program to the ground and be at a 9 by Easter - of course that means a lot of work and hours testing - but I am young and ambitions!

I am a revit user and I just switched over (from the dark rigid side) to rhino because of a simple math problem which has to do with variations and combinations.

I am investigating the form factor for my thesis.

Form factor= building envelope (the area of the facade+the area of the roof+the area of the footprint)/the total area of the floors.

I have started by defining a specific set of parameters such as height, number of floors, maximum total floor area so I can compare the results.

Therefore the floating number will be the facade area - which in the end, considering the height is a constant - ends up being just the length of a certain shape - circle, square, triangle ...

I have done the calculation through excel  after extracting from revit but only on simple shapes as follow(the following examples are my own analyzing work):

My problem is: I need a way to get all possible shapes that meet the criteria i put in - which at the moment will be defined by square meters of a floor- that is why galapagos comes in - I need it to make all possible combinations that can be computed that meet the criteria - so then the user(myself or who ever else want to use it) can make an informed choice. I am not looking for a square - circle, sphere or anything I can manually create by just using basic geometry, I am looking for all the possible combination that equal the same area.

(plan view)

After i can solve it for one level - i will constrain that all the levels add up have specific total area - so if a level get's bigger in size another one gets smaller. Again run it through Galapagos and get all possible outcomes (like the sections below)

I am aiming to get an outcome from which you have options to pick out of -> a design process not a specific shape.

You are thinking too complex - not that it's a bad thing - but I am looking for something more simplistic than that. I need a shape - windows and panels are for later use in my process and at this early stage completely irrelevant - and that will be another percentage math problem rather than aesthetics. I just need shapes to morph based on input parameters.

I hope this was an interesting read for you and I really appreciate your patience with me.

Well ... I'm in the field, he he ... meaning 1M miles away from academic thinking.

What this means? It means that PRIOR exploiting any form/idea the contemporary trend (not followed by many: dinosaurs still reign) is to deal with ways to DO the idea in real-life. This is the so called bottom-top design approach.

Metaphorically: first get the gist of the piston and then design a V8 (or any engine).

This simply means that you need first to have a clear idea about the panels that make a twisting thingy and then (having ALL the restrictions in mind ... not to mention the issues of using them in the long term: cost, leaks, leaks, leaks, seismic behavior ... blah, blah) attempt to do anything with these.

It's not a complex way of thinking at all - provided that you are used on that, he he. The usual side effect is to instantly "translate" a "wish" (or an abstract idea/proposal) into real-life "parts" and nuts and ... construction methods: it's the part that dictates what the whole should do and not the archaic other way used in the past. Difficult to learn this way, mind, in an Academic institution (any, anywhere).

What all the above mean in your case?

Simply: your issue Numero uno is  planarity AND quads and/or triangles (if the topology is "helping") AND the actual characteristics of a given curtain wall system. And this is NOT something addressable with Galapagos.

And obviously the criteria that you have in mind ... are not the ones that we use in real-life.

I'll try to provide a "simple" example on all these (maybe this weekend) but I can't guarantee that code would not get involved.

PS: Level 9 by Easter?  Like that, he he.

great concept