ceros.
Public concerné /
Architectes et designers, utilisateurs de Rhino souhaitant paramétrer Rhinocéros à l’aide de Grasshopper, programme
associant des composants et une structure de graphe interagissants avec le modèle Rhino.
Une bonne connaissance de Rhinocéros est nécessaire. La langue de la formation est le français.
Structure et Objectif de la formation /
La formation se déroule sur 3 jours : les 2 premières journées sont consacrées aux « fondamentaux » de Grasshopper
avec en préambule une introduction au design et à l’architecture paramétrique et leurs impacts dans la conception, la
création et la construction.
La troisième journée sous forme d’atelier est dédiée à l’étude de cas concrets proposés par les stagiaires, qui, quelques
jours avant la formation, pourront envoyer leurs projets par mail à info AT rhinoforyou DOT com
Les stagiaires, après la formation, pourront rester en contact avec les formateurs de HDA par le biais du blog
complexitys.com et le twitter @HDA_Paris. La durée de cette formation permettra d’atteindre une autonomie et une
bonne compréhension basée sur des exemples concrets.
3 Formules possibles /
3 jours ( Initiation+Atelier ) : du lundi 20 septembre au mercredi 22 septembre
2 jours ( Initiation ) : lundi 20 et mardi 21 septembre
1 jour ( Atelier ) : mercredi 22 septembre
Programme ind icatif des notions traitéES pendan t la formation /
Introduction à la conception Paramétrique . Rhinoscript, Grasshopper: différences et similarités . Interface
graphique de Grasshopper . Objets, Données, Listes . Opérateurs scalaires : La mathématique de
Grasshopper . Gestions des données : la logique de Grasshopper . Vecteurs, Points, Lignes, Surfaces : La
géométrie de Grasshopper . Listes, Arbres, Branches . Le dessin paramétrique: exercices divers et exemples
. Références, Bibliographie, Support de cours . Ateliers d’architecture et design paramétrique (3ème jour) .
Moda lité de la formation /
Venir avec un PC portable équipé de Rhinocéros version 4.0 SR 7 et de la dernière version du plug-in
Grasshopper (téléchargeable sur www.grasshopper3d.com).
Le coût du stage est de 350 € HT/jour par personne.
Réserver votre place dès que possible car les places sont limitées à 10 participants maximum.
Inscriptions et renseignements: Jacques Hababou, info AT rhinoforyou DOT com
Pour en savoir plus sur l’architecture paramétrique: www.complexitys.com…
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011
he picture (4).
Previously, I had a problem with generating intersections between the two directions of the beams, but a colleague helped me by extending beams, so there was no problem with lines of intersection. But this solution has generated curl (5) at the highest vertex geometry, which I ignored in order to repair it before printing, perhaps this mean my problem with my beam spread properly. Only when the beams is 19, does not jump no problem, but I still can not distribute them properly.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
I tried to show as simply as possible by removing or signing my code in GHX file.
Thank you in advance for your help
…
ive collaborative environment.
TYPE : Course module and Workshop
The event is open for anybody interested from all the fields of design, including: architecture, interior design, furniture design, product design, fashion design, scenography, and engineering.
1. COURSE MODULE (20-23 April 2014) - optional
+ type: 3 days intensive course regarding basic knowledge in parametric design (LEVEL 1)
+ software: Rhinoceros & Grasshopper
+ plugins: Kangaroo, Weaver Bird, Lunch box, Ghowl, Geco
+ achievements:
- acquainting to the components & the concept of Generative Design
- understanding the strategies in Algorithmic Design
- how to easily insert simple mathematical equation into the project to gain more control
- how to utilize proper plugins with respect to their nature of the project
- interacting with different analysis platforms such as Ecotect & remote controller
- solving several exercises with different scales( 2D- 3D ) during each phase of the workshop
2. WORKSHOP (23-27 April 2014)
A 5 day Design-Based Research Workshop exploring new techniques in Digital Architecture/Fabrication, with a specific focus on the use of generative systems and parametric modeling as tools for creative expression.
Our ultimate goal is to increasing the efficiency of utilizing digital tools in parallel with geometric performance of the primitive design agent.
+ + CONCEPT
Fashion and Architecture are both based on basic life necessities – clothing and shelter.
However, they are also forms of self-expression – for both creators and consumers.
Both fashion and architecture affect our emotional being in many ways.
The agenda of this workshop is to investigate on the overlap between these two areas of design, art & fashion.
Fashion and architecture express ideas of personal, social and cultural identity, reflecting the concerns of the user and the ambition of the age. Their relationship is a symbiotic one and throughout history, clothing and buildings have echoed each other in form and appearance. This only seems natural as they not only share the primary function of providing shelter and protection for the body, but also because they both create space and volume out of flat, two-dimensional materials.
While they have much in common, they are also intrinsically different – address the human scale, but the proportions, sizes and shapes differ enormously.
+ + + OBJECTIVES
So far, Architects have been using techniques such as folding, bending etc. to create space, structural roofs or different other structural shapes.
The agenda of this workshop goes further with the investigation of algorithmic thinking through generative tools Integrated in design.
The challenge is creating a bridge that connects these two areas of design, architecture and fashion that perform at two opposite scales.
+ + + + TECHNICAL BRIEF
In the early stages physical models and low-tech strategies will be used, allowing the participants to gain a greater understanding of materials, fabrication and assembly methods as well as simple, yet pragmatic structural solutions.
Later in the workshop these strategies will be digitalized and elaborated using software visualizing tools such as Rhinoceros and the algorithmic plug-in Grasshopper.…
ort and export from the images below and also from the HELP file of DB in attachments (Page 71: Importing Geometric Data; Page 78-80: Import 3 - D CAD Data). In their HELP file, they mention about "import geometric data".
However, regarding the input of schedules, loads, constructions and etc., DB normally uses "Component " and "Template" (Page 29: Templates And Components; Page 591: Templates; Page 533: Components). "Templates" are databases of typical generic data, including Activity templates, Construction templates, Glazing templates, Facade templates, HVAC templates, Location Templates, and etc. "Component " are databases of individual data items (e.g. a construction type, material, window pane).
Both "Component " and "Template" are allowed to be imported and exported by using "Import / Export library data" command (.ddf format - DB Database File; Page 734: Import Components/Templates, Export Components/Templates). DB also allows us to build up our own libraries of templates and components (Page 731: Library Management; Page 733: Template Library Management).
In order to import both geometric information and other information related to schedules, loads, constructions and etc. from GH to BD, we supposed the following two ways:
1. GH(HB+GB) --> gbXML (both geometric and "Component " and "Template" information) --> DB
This is the way we most prefer. We did see information related to schedules, loads, constructions encoded in the gbXML file generated by GB, but still do not know the reason why DB did not take this information (I also mentioned this in Q6 within the gh file). We assume this might because the gbXML file we create encodes the schedules based on a different template / schema than the one DB expects. We also post this question to the DB forum for help.
(http://www.designbuilder.co.uk/component/option,com_forum/Itemid,25/page,viewtopic/p,13755/#13755)
2. GH(HB+GB) --> gbXML (geometric information only) + .ddf ("Component " and "Template" information only) --> DB
If the first way doesn't work and DB only takes geometric information from the gbXML, then we might think of the other way - generating the .ddf files from GH(HB+GB) to pass the schedule, load and construction information to DB.
I was wondering if it is feasible for HB and GB to have this function? And what is your suggestion to achieve this?
In addition, we notice that DB can export XML files (not gbXML), so we are trying to figure out if DB also accepts / reads the XML file. If so, we might be able to convert the gbXML (with both geometric and schedule information) to XML. What do you think about that?
Thank you again for all your help!
Best,
Ding
DB import
DB export
Template libraries
Component libraries
…
try now to integrate Geco in an interdisciplinary architectural engineering studio: hoping we can show you some nice applications of your tool, I'll keep you update and sending now details by e-mail. Here the file (very welcome to be shared). It most probably contais trivial errors by me, thanks for helping and giving some tip! Gr. Michela
FILE:
Ok, right, I see the outputs update correctly. Origin of problems must be in some different mistake I do:
- Incident radiation: I am not sure I understand what is going on: why I get so many 'not a number' ? (The Galapagos report is full of NaNs).
Bio-Diversity: 0.887 Genome[0], Fitness=NaN, Genes [89% · 44%] { Record: Too many fitness values supplied } ...
Genome[7], Fitness=NaN, Genes [74%] { Record: No fitness value was supplied } ....
Genome[9], Fitness=NaN, Genes [37% · 11%] { Record: Genome was mutated to avoid collision Record: Too many fitness values supplied }
- Daylight calculations: the geometry accumulates withouth deleting the previous models. As a consequance, results almost do not change after few varations (so, outputs get updated but do not vary). In current daylight definition: the first object being imported is the one where the grid has to fit; its setting makes it cancelling all the other objects during import. All the others, do not delete anything when imported. When running loops (manual or GA) that vary parameters, the entire geometry do not get cancelled - so I guess the loop does not pass back by the cancelling step, but imports only the geometry which has been varied by the parameters using the setting of that import component only? I will then try again by changing the order of the operations, but if you have specfic tips, let me know.
THANKS!
…
edit 29/04/14 - Here is a new collection of more than 80 example files, organized by category:
KangarooExamples.zip
This zip is the most up to date collection of examples at the moment, and collects t
Introduction to Grasshopper Videos by David Rutten.
Wondering how to get started with Grasshopper? Look no further. Spend an some time with the creator of Grasshopper, David Rutten, to learn the