glass panel).
2. This actually means that the parts on duty they don't differ that much. Meaning that we can use an "average" size (and "local" topology) acting as the Jack for all trades.
3. Meaning that we can effectively solve the abstract topology with an abstract app the likes of GH and then place in properly defined coordinate systems all the real-life bits and nuts ... closely "emulating" a pro solution (that could "adjust" the parts as well).
4. This means that one particular C# needs more lines of code since as it is it defines cable axis on a per nod to node basis ... but in fact these are defined as the min segment between curves (circles to be exact).
5. Additionally the end part of each strut differs depending on how many pairs of stabilizing cables are used (either 2 or 1). Meaning some lines of code more for defining the proper coordinate systems for the instance definitions.
6. This is the reason that I've postponed mailing to you the 4 horsemen (because PRIOR finishing the whole you MUST define what parts to use: the classic bottom-top design approach).
But in order to receive the Salvation (aka: Apocalypse) you MUST answer correctly to a simple puzzle:
Provided that money is no object, pick your car:
1. Ferrari 245 (Less is more)
2. Lancia Stratos (Lethal).
3. Cobra 427 (Men only)
4. Ford GT40 (Mama mia)
5. Ariel Atom (Mental)
6. Aston Zagato GTB4 (Sweet Jesus)
7. Fulvia HF Fanalone (THE racer)
8. Lambo Miura (Enough said)
9. Lotus Elise (Just add lightness)
10. Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione (In red)…
r visual programming tools in the games world. MS's Kodu, looks interesting. Kismet and Visual3d look even more interesting..... mainly because they are more 'interactive' or 'reactive', rather than DAG-based.
Seems like the evolution path for GH-similar apps is:
1. base 3d or CAD app based on C/C++ code.
2. Add scripting language interface
3. Add some kind of visual interface
4. Add graph sorting / propagation engine
5. Re-jig base 3d or CADD app to make managed/interpreted scripts run faster, multi-threaded.
6. Add dynamic typed language, DLR stuff
6. ....
6. Add constraints solver...?
7. Rebuild CAD display engine to be procedural at the GPU level?
Seems like there are available tools for converting scripts into some kind of flowchart. There are even visual debuggers. MS even has something called the 'Debugger Canvas'. Spreadsheet constraints.
Seems like the time is ripe for lots of new apps like GH.
…
e buttons that need pressing and then call Button.PerformClick() on them. But that requires a .NET exe.
I think you're out of luck in this case, there do exist automation tools on Windows that can start apps and press certain buttons, but I do not know which ones are good and which ones can be controlled via command-line arguments.…
Added by David Rutten at 6:16am on August 24, 2014
lled CGA, which does what I think you are looking for. Download the trial version: http://www.esri.com/apps/products/cityengine2/index.cfm
and then try the Shape Grammar tutorials (6 and 9 of the following page):
http://video.arcgis.com/series/62/cityengine
Best regards,
Eduardo…
Added by castroecosta at 6:40am on November 25, 2012
ere (http://blog.maideinc.com/). I also posted up our future designs to bring over commands from Rhino to the iPad, so you can customize your own menu's.
Let me know if you guys have any feedback on how we planned to do it.
Cheers,
Oleg.
…
Added by Oleg Kostour at 3:53pm on December 24, 2011
, HVAC, blah blah).
BIM is NOT a parametric process at least having in mind graphical editors the likes of GH (or stuff the likes of Generative Components): it's a holistic data management approach. Some concepts used in BIM apps (for instance in AECOSim etc) the likes of "walls"/"openings" etc are "parametric" in the sense that allow auto perforation of this with that. On the other hand AECOSim is feature driven (since Microstation works in that "mode" as well) ... a thing that complex things even more with regard what is actually "parametric" and what not.
BIM is as good as the meta data structure is (especially the spec related aspect - Goggle MasterFormat and the likes). BIM AEC apps are notoriously incapable to work (without a lot of lines of code) with proper RDBMS. On the other hand Bentley Systems ProjectWise ... well ... but that's another animal (by no means a topic for the inexperienced).
In descending order or importance a contemporary AEC practice should use:
1. A general information "controller" like ProjectWise (who said/did what/when/why).
2. A Specs (say CSI - not the TV soap opera) management app.
3. Several Meta data RDBMS.
4. A BIM suite of apps.
5. Optionally some parametric thingy.
PS: For AEC ... when inviting the parametric thingy to the party you have only 2 options:
ProjectWise + AECOSim + Generative Ciomponents (my choice).
?? + Revit + Dynamo.
…
ts (Rhino 6 and everything that came after the plugin itself was written).When I tested it, it had some issues with a large number of lines and if parameters weren't carefully tuned it failed to produce consistent meshes.If some of you has time and skills on their hands, there is the source code available on GitHub (link is in the description). For personal use, time ago I updated a definition by David Stasiuk to make nodes and beams, based on 3D Convex Hull component. You can still find it here:https://www.grasshopper3d.com/xn/detail/2985220:Comment:1745216Warning: in Rhino 6 the Starling Convex Hull component doesn't seem to work well, you can use the 3D Convex Hull from the MeshEdit plugin instead (https://www.food4rhino.com/app/meshedit - just substitute the 3D Convex Hull component in the definition and it should work fine).…
th a graphic editor (GH) hosted in a CAD app that has primitive assembly/component capabilities and/or feature driven ops (Rhino). Did I've mentioned that Rhino is a surface modeler? (meaning the obvious).
3. Imagine a "seed" collection of assemblies related with various membrane components made in SW. Say: geometry (prior solid ops) and parameters (the feature driven part of the equation, in most of cases managed with some RDBMS). You should port these to GH (a variety of ways exist for that) and create the bare minimum of "solids" in GH as instance definitions. There's 2 main reasons to do that: (a) effectively communicating back on an assemply/component schema (via STEP) and ... (b) achieving manageable collections when in GH. These are critical for clash detection (when outlining some topology in GH, therefore NEVER work just with "curves") and "variation" control of some sort (up to a point). Of course for high class designs (where the devil hides in the details) this is NOT the best imaginable solution ... you'll need CATIA for such an integrated (all in one) procedure. On the other hand many could (wrongly) argue that CATIA is expensive (rather naive argument if a company has a certain turnover).
4. So, in general I would strongly suggest to use instance definitions of items in some sort of "intermediate state" of detail (an 100% undoable task without code) structured in such a way (classic assembly/component MCAD mentality blah, blah) that SW could take benefit of a possible modified "base topology" and proceed by finishing variations of the given assembly (feature driven stuff as usual).
5. Then export (STEP 214) back portions of the assemblies (and parameters used) to R/GH if and when this is required (for instance for BIM disciplines ... but Rhino is not a BIM app, nor it would ever be).
6. If you are familiar with code matters ... start thinking the whole puzzle that way, if not my advise is to find someone to design such a "procedure" (say an "app") using solely code, but this is not a task for the inexperienced by any means.
best, Peter…