milar once its default data managment techniques are exceeded thus forcing a new address index to be inserted. Its all just so unnecessarily particular and finickity.
If addresses are added when forced to, why not just have that as the default behaviour in the first place? Its not so much 'one size fits all' as postulated previously, but more one size fits 80% of cases and in the remaining 20% of cases you're going to be a slave to your definition as constant manual management will be required just to control the thing.
My final point:
circle with points should have a list address of {0}
multiple circles with points should have list address of {0;0}
multiple circles in multiple locations with points should have list address of {0;0;0} etc
I really dont see how that is any less consistent for highly complex data strucutres. To any rational individual this is predicable and follows a logic. What advantage is there in fixing the address at {0;0} yet still allow for new address sequences to be added firther down stream? Logic is the key thing to keep in mind here, not peculiar nuances only the initiated can ever be aware of.…
cle
the 'Shape' is copied to all points
shapes are rotated randomly, plus or minus 'Angle' maximum
'Shape In Brep (ShapeIn)' is used to cull shapes that aren't within the circle
'Fast Loop' begins using 'MCX' (Multiple Curves Intersection)
first shape is added to 'D1' output and shapes intersecting it are culled
results minus first shape are passed to 'D0' of 'FastLoopEnd'
loop repeats until 'D0' list is empty
'D1' results are scaled down slightly (0.75) to leave more space around them
'Explode' results and return only the curved part, ignoring the base line that closes the shape
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 11:01pm on March 17, 2017
avid--this software is a pleasure to use, and David, you have done an amazing job. I also want to acknowledge it takes a lot of work to edit the software, and I understand that it can take a while before any changes are made.
Okay so here are some ideas:
Subcurve - just like subsurface, but based on 1-dimensional intervals
Map Values to Interval - a single component that could take a list of values, an interval, and would scale the list of values to match the input interval.
A Dispatch component that could dispatch according to a list of output indices. Instead of just True/False, you could output things based on a pattern using 0/1/2/3/4, etc. This component would be the inverse of Weave.
A text object parameter and data type, with some basic ways to edit it.
More string manipulation operations, allowing for easy editing with string subintervals, and character counts, and basic text formatting (line return, etc.).
I really really really wish the List Item component had a default index value of "0". That is what I input into it 80% of the time.
That's all for now. If any of these ideas are already adequately addressed, please let me know. Thanks.
…
ellation tool of GeomGym in Grasshopper.
The design looks for a new brick topology which is in the shape of two generative elements of Weaire-Phelan structure; dodecahedron and tetrakaidecahedron. An innovative approach is taken by applying varying types of solutions and details to the new brick elements.
There are other good examples and winners which are worth looking into. Our sheets can be downloaded from here.
All comments appreciated.
We would like to thank Jon Mirtschin and anyone who contributed to this tool.
Xue Ai and Serdar Aydin…
ram of creating sightline.
In the diagram formula is N=[((R+C)x(D+T))/D] - R where R is the vertical distance of eye above point of focus and D is the horizontal distance from eye to point of focus.
So I have very simple test script.
Call main()
Sub main()
Dim D,R,N
Dim T,C
T=1
C=1
For D=0 To 5 Step 0
D=D+T
For R=0 To 5 Step 0
N=(((R+C)*(D+T))/D)-R
R=R+N
Call Rhino.addpoint(Array(D,R,N))
Next
Next
End Sub
Basically I want to make all variable "D","R","T" and "C" as parametric number slider in GH
and repeat "D=D+T", "R=R+N" and "N=(((R+C)*(D+T))/D)-R" until certain times.
The question is how to make a incremental loop in GH.
If anyone think that there is a better solution to do this please teach me.
Thanks for your time!!
…
te some cut sheets, but not to optmize material, rather define some cut lines. Everything that I am cutting is made of planar wood elements, but there are very specific geometries (mostly straight lines) and I have to put tolerances and radiasas at the corners in order to cut on the cnc mill. Spending time to figure out how to automate is necessary, but I am stuck!
One thing the definition is doing is taking my brep modeled components in rhino and makking them into 2d close curves and laying them side by side. It works...not ideal as its not layed out in a sheet, but that is not the most important part.
Another particular problem is that you will see some notches in the curves, which other pieces will slip into, so different slots need different specific offsets (making them larger) as a toelrance to allow for material play. This I don't even know how to set up so maybe it will just have to wait.
THE MAIN QUESTION, and super important would be, LIFESAVER:
At all 'inward' corners...which I think will always mean concave corners (most are 90 degrees, but are within to sides, instead of a corner sticking out). I'm sure its obviousy, but the reason being the outward corners a circular dril bit can cut, but inward ones need an arc profile extended beyond where the corner of the other piece will fit into. The drill bit i am using is 6mm, so 6mm diamters arcs is what i'm working with.
I have managed to put such an arc at every vertices of each cut piece. The problem being some stick outward isntead of cutting into the piece. So each one needs to be orieneted correctly. Ideally they would also only draw into inward corners, but I can always delete them out. I think maybe I am missing a more logical mathematical way of defining?
For these geometries it is not very important which side the half circle arc in on in the inward corners, but I also have some geometries that I will have to control where the circles face according to the rest of the cut piece.
The cutouts in the middle of the pieces that are curves do not need such corners obviously.
The picture is an example drawn
I hope this isn't too specific and long. in general though automating fabrication, and controling pracitcal math and orientation problems like this is itnersting to me!
THANKS…
perienced with grasshopper, but so far I've managed to combine the following:
Giulio Piacentino's "Catenary arch from height" script
Pirouz Nourian's "Mobius" script (Obtained from a friend)
End Result:
Here's where I'm stuck: I want the mobius twist to revolve around the midpoint of the arch, but the script uses the input values to determine the endpoints, resulting in a weird sinuous shape when viewed from above. Also, the secondary end points (generated by the mobius script, determining the width of the surface) are generated by default along the z axis, resulting in an arch that only touches the "ground" at two points. I attempted to work around this issue by trying to force the zHeight parameter to correspond with the y axis (thus rotating the arch 90 degrees so it would lay "flat"), but the script interprets the third point as a value and not as an actual point to bisect. I thought this might be an issue with the C# component that I obtained from Giulio Piacentino's script, so I attempted to tinker around with the source code. Unfortunately, I'm not fluent in C# so I only managed to mess everything up (I've since recovered the code from the cache). Anybody got some ideas? -BC …
onsidered period.
Even if the end of July for the mediterranean climate is not the best period to perform an adaptive comfort analysis (it's just a pretest to define a LB model) I want to refine the Adaptive comfort Chart (AC) by changing the external air temperature data imported from the .epw file with that of monitored data as reported here below:
Where the monitored ext air temperature are in this form (green panel below):
I have used the comfortPar component to set the following parameters:
Adaptive chart as defined by EN 15251
90% of occupants comfortable
the prevailing outdoor temperature from a weighted running mean of the last week
fully conditioned space (even if it is not properly in line with AC as already discussed)
The question is this: the AC component could correctly apply the code below if there is only a list of external temperature data for a restricted period (without indication about the limits of this period) and not for an entire year?
else: #Calculate a running mean temperature. alpha = 0.8 divisor = 1 + alpha + math.pow(alpha,2) + math.pow(alpha,3) + math.pow(alpha,4) + math.pow(alpha,5) dividend = (sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-24:-1] + [_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-1]])/24) + (alpha*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-48:-24])/24)) + (math.pow(alpha,2)*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-72:-48])/24)) + (math.pow(alpha,3)*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-96:-72])/24)) + (math.pow(alpha,4)*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-120:-96])/24)) + (math.pow(alpha,5)*(sum(_prevailingOutdoorTemp[-144:-120])/24)) startingTemp = dividend/divisor if startingTemp < 10: coldTimes.append(0) outdoorTemp = _prevailingOutdoorTemp[7:] startingMean = sum(outdoorTemp[:24])/24 dailyRunMeans = [startingTemp] dailyMeans = [startingMean] prevailTemp.extend(duplicateData([startingTemp], 24)) startHour = 24
…
Simpsons episode were Bart goes into a mall and in the time he goes in and out of a shop all others have been turned into Starbucks.
I personally don't like it but you can't say they are crushing all competitors because, as far as i know, all owners of those software packages voluntarily sold their property for a good price. I would actually be more worried that an antitrust lawsuit was filed against Autodesk.
For example, this is what happened with Rockefeller's Standard Oil:
The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.[32]
The court argued, in essence, that Standard Oil was a "large" company with many divisions, and if those divisions were in reality separate companies, there would be more competition. The court made no mention at all of the industry's economic performance; of supposed predatory pricing; of whether industry output had been restrained, as monopoly theory holds; or of any other economic factors relevant to determining harm to consumers. The mere fact that Standard Oil had organized some thirty separate divisions under one consolidated management structure (a trust) was sufficient reason to label it a monopoly and force the company to break up into a number of smaller units.
To economists, "predatory pricing" is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity, either.
In other words, the organizational structure that was responsible for the company's great efficiencies and decades-long price cutting and product improving was seriously damaged. Standard Oil became much less efficient as a result, to the benefit of its less efficient rivals and to the detriment of consumers.
From: http://mises.org/daily/2317
(Beware, that site is very ideologically charged)…