o está dirigido a estudiantes de arquitectura y diseño de interiores, recién titulados y profesionales interesados en el software o que necesiten conocer las herramientas básicas de las que dispone el programa en los diferentes ámbitos y cómo enfocarlas a arquitectura.
Descripción:El contenido del curso enseñará a utilizar el programa de diseño Rhinoceros 3D aplicando su metodología de trabajo en el campo de la arquitectura, básandose además de la creación de pequeños elementos paramétricos para controlar el diseño y acabar renderizando las geometrías 3d con V-Ray para Rhino.
El curso consta de 3 módulos de 12h de duración cada uno (que pueden realizarse juntos o por separado) en los cuales se profundizará en herramientas de Rhino, Grasshopper y V-Ray a medida que se realizan casos prácticos sobre proyectos arquitectónicos.Se pretende establecer un sistema de trabajo eficiente desde el inicio del modelado hasta la posterior creación de imágenes para documentación del proyecto.
Módulo Rhinoceros Arquitectura:• Conceptos básicos e interfaz de usuario Rhino• Introducción al sistema cartesiano en Rhino• Clases de complejidad de geometría• Importación/exportación de archivos compatibles• Topología NURBS• Trabajo con Sólidos• Estrategias básicas de Superficies• Introducción a Superficies Avanzadas
Módulo Grasshopper:• Conceptos básicos e interfaz de usuario Grasshopper• Introducción a parámetros base y componentes• Matemáticas y trigonometría como herramientas de diseño• Matemáticas aplicadas a creación de Geometría• Introducción a listas simples• Análisis de Superficies y Curvas• Dominios de Superficies y Curvas• Panelado de superficies• Manejo de listas y componentes relacionados• Modificación de panelados en función de atractores• Exportación/Importación de información a Grasshopper
Módulo V-Ray para Rhinoceros:• Conceptos básicos e interfaz de usuario V-Ray• Vistas guardadas• Materiales V-Ray• Materiales, creación y edición• Iluminación (Global Illumination, Sunlight, Lights)• Cámara Física vs Cámara default• Canales de Render• Postprocesado básico de canales
Detalles:Instructores: Alba Armengol Gasull y Oriol Carrasco (SMD Arquitectes)Idioma: CastellanoHorario: 22 JULIO al 26 JULIO 2013 // 10.00 – 14.00 / 16.00 – 20.00Organizadores: SMDLugar: SMD lab, c/Lepant 242 Local 11, 08013 Barcelona (map)
Software:Rhinoceros 5Grasshopper 0.9.00.56V-Ray 1.5 for RhinoAdobe Photoshop CS5Links de versiones de evaluación de los Softwares serán facilitadas a todos los asistentes. Se usará unica y exclusivamente la versión de Rhino para PC. Se ruega a los participantes traer su propio ordenador portátil.
Registro:Modalidad de precio reducido por tres módulos 275€Posibilidad de realizar módulos por separado 99€…
h, and using the BScale and BDistance are creating havoc somehow too. I've simplified first, and used the Kangaroo Frames component along with setting internal iterations, to make MeshMachine act like a normal component, along with releasing the FixC and FixV. The FixV didn't make any sense anyway. I've also set Pull to 0 to speed it up during testing, since much less calculation is involved to just let the meshes collapse, prevented from disappearing altogether by using a mere 15 iterations.
Also, your breps are open so that allows much more chaos and then collapse, though they did manage to close themselves too at times. Here is closed breps with a full 45 iterations:
So now that it's working, lets re-Fix the curves, and the problem arises that there is an extra seam line that is getting fixed too, running along the cylinder, stopping the mesh from pulling tight under tension wherever a vertex happens to be near that line:
So lets grab only the naked edge curves instead:
And what happens if we lose the end caps, now that we don't have an extra line skewing the result?:
There is no real curvature differences since it's not a curvy brep so the Adapt at full 1 setting has little to do. Now what does the BScale and BDist do? Nothing! Why? Your scale is out of whack, 99 mm high cylinders but only a falloff maximum of about 5, so let's make the falloff be 25 instead, but I must restore the end caps or the meshes collapse away for some reason and freezes Rhino for a minute or so the first time I try it:
It's a start.
If I intersect the cylinders, nothing changes, since they are being treated as separate runs. MeshMachine outputs a sequence of two outputs though, due to Frames being set to a bare minimum of 2 needed to get it to work, so I filter out the original run, which is just the unmodified initial mesh it creates.
The lesson so far is that closed meshes are much less prone to collapse and glitches leading to screw ups.
A Boolean union of the cylinders is when it gets funner, here show with and without the fixed curves that seem to define boundaries too where really there are just polysurface edges:
…
hino Mc Neel, autore di "Architettura Parametrica - Introduzione a Grasshopper", il primo manuale su Grasshopper. I corsi PLUG IT nascono dalla volontà di promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e condividere il know-how maturato attraverso ricerca, collaborazione con i più importanti studi di architettura e pubblicazioni internazionali. Verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti con esperienza minima nella modellazione 3D e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche ed esercitazioni. Argomenti trattati: - Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio - Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica - Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow - Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati - Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici - Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi - Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling - Attrattori, image sampler - Data tree: gestione di dati complessi - Digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi - Nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni piane per macchine CNC Verrà rilasciato un attestato finale. INFO E PRENOTAZIONI: http://www.arturotedeschi.com/wordpress/?p=2914…
robablemente las uniones son forzadas/rotadas levemente para que calcen.
Probablemente se puede variar el angulo de 90° entre cada pieza a un angulo que permita crear el octagono perfecto, pero habría dos posibilidades de giro entre cada pieza.
Tal vez el problema hay que repensarlo desde el octagono/poliedro que forman los triangulos en el modelo y luego generar los triangulos.
Bueno aca mi definicion y algunos comentarios:
- Hoopsnake pide una condicion inicial que solo la utiliza en la primera iteracion (input S).
- Luego hay que definir el algoritmo reiterativo/recursivo que es toda la parte de abajo. Como input se utiliza el output S de hoopsnake (en la primera iteracion es la misma informacion que ingresaste en S).
El resultado de este algoritmo/proceso vuelve a ingresar a hoopsnake en el input D para una nueva iteración.
- El output H es el historial de toda la geometria/datos procesados en las iteraciones.
Ahora te explico el algoritmo:
- Se toma el triangulo y se sacan los puntos en las esquinas.
- Se revisa si los puntos estan contenidos en otro triangulo existente y hago cull para dejar los libres (ocupo el output H del hoopsnake para ver los triangulos de las iteraciones anteriores). En la primera iteracion hago un bypass para dejar todos los puntos iniciales libres (ya que no hay historial en el hoopsnake).
- La parte de abajo es para elegir una de las dos opciones max disponibles (tu comentaste arriba que habia tres opciones... en realidad son tres opciones en la inicial, luego son solo dos opciones. No se que va a pasar si se se completa el octagono, teoricamente habría solo 1 opcion disponible, pero no pude reproducirlo por el problema geometrico).
A modo de ejemplo, en la imagen le deje todas las opciones disponibles y conecte directamente (dos para el triangulo) para tratar de generar los octagonos.
- La parte final es simple, desde el centro del triangulo se genera una linea hacia las opciones disponibles para generar un plano perpendicular para la simetria y luego se rota en 90° (que creo debería ser otro angulo). Puedes mover el slider del plano perpendicular para generar la interseccion deseada en los triangulos (0.5 para interseccion completa).
Como ya te indicaron, yo tampoco hice el tema de las areas.. pero deberia ser simple en mi definición: Calculas el area del output H (triangulos), aplicas flatten, mass addition y si el numero resultante es mayor al area de la placa que quieres, debería generar un valor falso que va en el input B de hoopsnake.
Sorry que no haya ocupado tu definicion, pero ocupe un grasshopper antiguo y ademas ya había solucionado un problema similar con un alumno el semestre pasado, asi que realicé lo que me acordaba :D
Saludos y suerte!
…
t, you can see 6 (+) signs with what you can add (A,B,C,P,Q,R).
Let's say you add A = 90 and B = 50.
Now you can't add the third angle (cause its 180-(50+90) = C output).
What you can add at the moment is P,Q,R.
You choose to add P = 10.
There is no more a possibility to add Q and R.
All component outputs now give us the data.
2. Triangle with P,Q,R
When you zoom the component, you can see 6 (+) signs with what you can add (A,B,C,P,Q,R).
Let's say you add P = 15, Q = 20.
Now if you add R, the component's outputs all the angles and edge lengths.
If R > P+Q then component throws warning. (> or >= ?)
You cannot add A,B or C anymone.
3.Triangle with P,Q and C
When you zoom the component, you can see 6 (+) signs with what you can add (A,B,C,P,Q,R).
Let's say you add P = 15, Q = 20.
Now if you add C (angle), the component's outputs all the angles and edge lengths.
You cannot add A,B or R anymone.
To make it all easier, disable the possibility to internalize the data.
Tolerance issue... Maybe round the angles always to floor , with 0.1 precision ?
…
We are posting a few experiments, created with the work-in-progress RABBIT 0.2. We plan to release it within a week or two…
RABBIT 0.2 has a lot of new features:…
Added by Morphocode at 8:42am on February 23, 2010
ned' as this is kind of unknown to me, which is why I wanted to look for a tool or script that might generate some geometry between the two. The fundamental principle is that the input meshes must retain 90+% of their original geometry (ie not deformed into an approximated wrapped shape) but be joined together by some sort of mesh geometry which acts as a link between the two shapes. The form for this could be highly abstract and doesn't need to conform to any parameters other than allowing the original meshes to be highly visible. I hope that makes sense, it may only be clear in my mind now that I have pursued it this far!With regards to the geometry wrapper, I found the example file that you sent us and attempted to plug in similar variables with my meshes, however the values returned by the geometry wrapper are constantly zero, no matter what I seem to change. I am currently plugging the mesh into a bounding box, which forms the box for both the geometry wrapper and iso surface and then inputting integers for the remaining parameters, though I'm not quite sure what actions these are performing. Would it help if I could send you my definition? I'm currently trying to internalise my meshes, though my rhino keeps crashing when I try! If you aren't able to follow any of the above let me know and I'll try and put together some simple diagrams that may explain it better.
Thanks,
Tom…
Added by Tom Jelley at 3:28pm on November 12, 2014
unique properties (color, UV map, vertex normal) the vertex is duplicated. So if you weld a mesh using the weld command with an angle tolerance of more than 90 degrees you're left with a box with 6 faces and 8 vertices.
It's quite a common way to describe meshes, Also the way your graphics card consumes meshes, so there's little CPU processing needed to process the meshes and feed them to the graphics card. If it's hard drive space you're worried about, there may be some compression possible. Apart from primitives, I don't know a geometry that do not represent a box by having four faces (including maya's polygons).
A mesh is considered closed when there are no naked edges. So for boxes this does not return false. I assume that internally spatial queries are used (or perhaps a check if the vertices are exactly the same)(see https://github.com/mcneel/rhinocommon/blob/master/dotnet/opennurbs/opennurbs_mesh.c )
Conclusion: If you want faces to show as having a (semi) creased edge, you'll have a vertex direction for each vertex.
However, if your goal is to make gears, I'd skip the whole part of creating meshes, and leverage Breps and extrusions to create the geometry, or using Extrusion (the geometry) might be a solution to create lightweight geometry, and forget about creating meshes yourself.
…
nt analysis - benchmarking >> bad condition of a face falsifies, resolution-dependence ...
B) if you use the karamba- or gh-mesher it still gives you bad results as your sphere has its nurbs-edge running through your cap. rotate the sphere 90° around x before and you are getting a nice mesh.
C) your supports are not defined just around its edge which i guess the benchmark would require?
D) you defined wood as the material, and there are some non-benchmark defaults for that i guess. also i am not sure but i think there have been some issues about the computability of shell element's materials with low shear modulus, and therefore the one of wood was raised. but you have to ask clemens for that.
nevertheless you can define your own material-properties with the resp. component
for me now, it calculates the first 5 buckling modes
good luck!
best
rob
…