hat aren’t completely there. BIM will have to continue to evolve some more if their supporters want to get to realize the promise that still is. I can’t say much about PLM, but I would say that both BIM and PLM should be considered in future developments of GH and Rhino. David has said several times that some GH limitations regarding geometry and data structures (central to interoperability) are actually Rhino limitations. So, I wouldn’t put so much pressure on David for this, or at least I would distribute the pressure also on the core Rhino development team.
Talking about Rhino vs. GH geometry, there is one (1) wish I have: support for extrusion geometry. GH already inputs extrusion elements from Rhino, but they are converted to breps. Is not a bad thing per se. The problem is when you need to bake several breps that make the Rhino file to weight several hundred MB. When these breps are actually prismatic, extrusion-like solids, is a shame that they aren’t stored as Rhino V5’s extrusion geometry in a file of just a couple of MB (I overcame this once with an inelegant RhinoScript that wasn’t good for other people). This was one of RhinoBIM’s main arguments. We can develop a structural model made of I-beams in GH using the Extrude components. We should be able to bake them as extrusions. That would also work for urban models with thousands of prismatic massing buildings (e.g. extruded footprints). Even GH’s boxes are baked as breps! Baking boxes as extrusions could be practical for voxelated or Minecraft-like models.
(2) Collaborative network support. Maybe with worksession handling, or something that aloud project team members to work on a single definition or in external references or something alike. I know there is another Rhino limitation on this, but maybe clusters are already going in that direction?
And maybe on the plug-ins domain:
(3) Remote control panel that could be really “remote”, like from other computer or device. There is an old Android App for that, but is not only a matter of updating. I mean, it would be great to control a slider with the accelerometer of an Android phone, but to have that on an iPhone will require another development team. If GH could support networks, a remote counterpart of a RCP plug-in could be developed as a cross-platform web app. I don’t know if you can access accelerometer functionality through HTML5 already, but for now, asking a client (or an spectator or any stakeholder for that matter) to control your sliders from gestures of his/her own phone would be awesome (maybe Firefly will fill that hole?).
(4) GIS support. GH already imports .shp files. Meerkat can even access the database, but what about writing to shapefiles or generating our own with databases processed/generated in GH?
(5) SketchUp support. Not only starchitects and corporations are using GH in the AEC. There are a lot of small firms, freelancers and students interested. Most of them use SketchUp for 3D modeling (not CATIA, neither Revit). Yes, you can import/export .skp from Rhino, but if GH could support nested block at bake time (also mentioned by others), it could write .skp files with complex relations of blocks (that are called components in SketchUp) and nested groups, going beyond what Rhino can export.
(6) Read/Write other formats. There are some challenges with proprietary formats that are not completely supported by Rhino, but they’re still a lot of open formats that are relevant to the fields of GH users, like stl and ply for 3D-printing. It could be nice to write mesh colors to a ply for 3D-printing a colored prototype based on GH colors. There are others, like IGES, STEP, COLLADA, etc. and 2D, like svg, odg and pdf. Some of them could offer special formatting options like custom data that the format supports but nobody uses just because is impractical to access this from direct modeling environments (but not from visual programming).
--Ernesto…
greatly appreciate it!!
You can write the number of the question and write your answer next to it, example:
1) a
2) c
3) a) Washington University in St. Louis
4) 2 weeks (1week+1week shipping)
5) 130
6) b
7) b
The survey questions are as follows:
1)
Did you 3D print before?
5)
How much did it cost (in dollars)?
a.
Yes, for a school project
a.
Between 20 & 50
b.
Yes, for a personal project
b.
Between 50 & 80
c.
Between 80 & 120
2)
Print size
d.
Please specify if otherwise: _____ dollars
a.
Between 2 & 6 cubic inches
b.
Between 6 & 12 cubic inches
6)
Do you think the price was expensive?
c.
Between 12 & 20 cubic inches
a.
Not at all
d.
Please specify if otherwise: ____cubic inches
b.
A little bit expensive
c.
Very expensive
3)
Where did you print your object?
a.
School
7)
Were you satisfied with the printed object?
b.
Outside school: _________________
a.
Yes, it was a great print without problems
b.
Not bad, some issues
4)
How long did it take to print?
c.
I was not satisfied, very bad quality
a.
___ days
b.
___ weeks
Thank you very much to all!!
PS: If you did many 3D prints, you can post multiple answers.
Wassef…
instead of ballooning outwards, just puffing upwards.
THIS WILL WORK! Creating the mesh springs is only three seconds for 200X200 and the Unary Force is still milliseconds. Only Kangaroo takes an initiation time then cycles rapidly (0.5 seconds each) and it only takes a few cycles, maybe a dozen or two.
There is considerable 3D aliasing from the 2D mesh crudeness.
Now, to best Laurent's scheme, let's double down to 400X400. First I disable Kangaroo, and the timer. The preparation takes...FOREVER....and...ever...4.6 minutes to cull the points is all, a trivial step there is likely a better strategy for than finding the ones on the inside then using those to cull duplicates from the whole collection. The springs only took 12 seconds and the forces again milliseconds.
Kangaroo, to initialize takes...after hitting the reset button to start it...over 15 minutes and counting...well 400X400 is 160K vertices and Rhino tends to bog down at 30K points...but it was done in 30 minutes. Then I enable the timer and each cycle takes...uh...it's not in any error mode but nothing is happening past a very faint first automatic cycle that shows in the mesh...yet no CPU power is being used by Rhino...well...it's simply not running...ah, well, there's just a dummy delay of another 5 minutes and then the cycles take 2.7 seconds...what a stupid delay that was not using CPU power.
Now that it's cycling, can I change the stiffness in real time, usually I can...well, no, I seem to be back in the 5 minute delay, but not the 30 minutes interface-locking one...still waiting. Here is a 1/4 scale height model of the above output:
Time's up, life goes on. The aliasing and slow speed make it unworkable except for little logos or something. Some math and parallel processing are needed?
…
Added by Nik Willmore at 5:51pm on February 21, 2016
r ideal surface so they add up where lots of points or lines cluster and create rather unintuitive bulges form a 3D modeler's perspective, here done with Millipede's Geometry Wrapper:
I've learned to do marching tetrahedra or cubes in Python to create the surface as needed from a implicit ( f(x,y,z) = 0 ) mathematical equation based on raw trigonometry but am not yet sure how to define an equation for Rhino user created input items like this or find a way to make marching cubes accept such input let alone one that doesn't treat each geometry item as an electric charge with so little decay.
This would afford an old school "organic" modeling paradigm that T-Splines replaced, but the T-Spines pipe command can't do nearby lines right either, which just makes overlapping junk. Metaballs and lines are not as elegant in that there is a real "dumb clay" aspect to the result that affords little natural structure beyond just smoothing, but still, if it works at all that beats T-Splines, and then I can feed the crude mesh result into Kangaroo MeshMachine to afford surface tension relaxation that will add elegant form to it.
I need both quick hacks and some help on how to deeply approach the mathematics of the required isosurface, now that I can think in Python better than ever.
I got a hint the other day here, about using a different power of fall-off but am not sure how to do the overall task mathematically:
"and just as with point based potentials, one can use different power laws for the distance, function, resulting it different amounts of rounding at the junctions. Below is with a 1/d^3 law for comparision with the above 1/d" - Daniel Piker
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/meshes?commentId=2985220%3AComment%3A1324050
He also included this link about bulging:
http://paulbourke.net/geometry/implicitsurf/
Am I supposed to create an actual implicit equation for my assigned points and lines and use that with marching cubes to surface it? If so, how do I define that equation, at all, and then how to control bulging too?
…
o use these extensions in order to integrate numerous tools for analysis and simulation in the architectural process.
This course aims to develop a link between the virtual and the real context model through structural or environmental simulations, using other software or plug-ins dedicated. Through this link the virtual model receives physical properties that can further modify and adapt the initial model. This creates feedback loops that can optimize the design to provide an object responsive to environmental conditions.
Curriculum
Mesh subdivision with Weaverbird, continuous surfaces without NURBS
Genetic optimization with Galapagos, optimal search
Physical environment feedback with Diva and Geco, solar and day lighting analysis
Adding physical properties with Kangaroo Physics, interactive form-finding
Linking the parametric model with structural analysis using Karamba, structural performance simulation
Extracting data with Firefly and Kinect, 3D scanning and human movement tracking
Exchange of information between Grasshopper and other applications with Ghowl links to internet feeds or Excel files.
Schedule:
Module 04 / Grasshopper intermediate & advanced (24 h)
11 Oct – 26 Oct 2013
Fri:
Sat:
16-20
10-14
Language: Romanian
Organized by:
OAR Bucureşti – Romanian Order of Architects, Bucharest Branch
Trainers:
Ionuț Anton, idz arhitectura (ART-Authorised Rhino Trainer)
Daniela Tănase, idz arhitectura (ART-Authorised Rhino Trainer)
https://www.facebook.com/cursurigrasshopperrhinoceros
http://www.oar-bucuresti.ro/anunturi/2013/02/27/d/…
Added by Dana Tanase at 2:49am on September 5, 2013
2013 | Sábados 19 y 26 de octubre. 15 Hrs.
Horario: 9:00 - 18:00 Hrs.
Instructores por BIO|Architecture Studio: A design & building laboratory.
Palabras clave:
Diseño Computacional, Scripting, Rhinoceros 5.0 + Grasshopper, Parametrización, Análisis, Fabricación Digital, 3D print.
Para mayor información:
MArch. Kathrin Schröter. E-mail: kschroter@itesm.mx
Dirección de Arquitectura. Oficinas de Aulas 1, segundo piso.
Carretera Lago de Guadalupe Km.3.5 Col. Margarita Maza de Juarez, Atizapan de Zaragoza. | 5864 55 55 Ext.5750.…
eated testing shows that it's just doing a Rhino Boolean Union internally, first, and thus fails whenever a normal Boolean fails, which is all the time if you have dozens or hundreds of bodies:
It's exactly the deal killer of failed Booleans that is driving my quest here, since using them ruined my original MeshMachine tension membrane relaxed modeling system, every time a casual user of it point edited a surface or a single sphere object until two faces nearly coincided and then the Boolean failed and it was hard to know where. This is totally robust, I believe.
$13K Materialise Magics has real Shrink Wrap which will wrap things nicely, and tightly, even perforated solids so it retains the holes, while closing off small gaps you can control the sensitivity to.
Microsoft has a rolling ball algorithm that does exactly what it sounds like it does, along the outside surface.
Once you have a fine mesh from my system, one offset by a fixed distance from each point, you could just offset the mesh inwards by that distance (after isolating it from the inner artifacts you can see on the left in green) and thus have a real hull, the need to smooth it to remove marching cube anti-aliasing affording some transition smoothing:
You could ramp up the number of points vastly, and set the radius of influence way down, to get a tighter initial result that would sharpen up even the transition, but this is pretty fast the way it is (1 second).…
merely automates finding clear intersections between pairs of objects and then splits the objects along those intersection *curves*, deletes the trims, then joins the remains, and cycles on. But within the confusing Rhino Settings tolerance value, wherever surfaces actually just sort of come closely together, there *is* *no* clear intersection curve. So it bugs out and stops working EVERY time you try more than a dozen or two spheres.
Some software can do this by switching to volumetric pixels (voxels). $9K-$30K Geomagic Freeform is an example of this. It also fails sometimes, often due to memory issues, as you can imagine since it needs to fill all inner space of each sphere definition with 3D pixels.
Materialize Magics for $16K can often handle such Booleans well. It will take a seeming lifetime to figure out such often pirate software kludges though.
One thing you can try though is to simply drape a mesh or NURBS plane onto the top of your spheres.
There's a well known *reason* your Booleans are failing. Nobody here has yet even hinted at it:
The main reason is that Rhino/Grasshopper developers don't care about the human element. The math exists to make this work very fast, every time. It just has to join things *right*, incorporating human knowledge of kissing surfaces, instead of acting stupidly, like some pocket calculator. But that would involve hacks that make 99% of complex Booleans work instead of 10%, and we can't have that since it will be SLOWER for the other 1% that just happen to have no nearly kissing or really kissing surfaces.
You could also use the new Cocoon plugin to do a surface *around* your structures, with a given radius of extension beyond the spheres, then offset that surface back the same radius. That is 100% robust, but won't offer quite as sharp of intersections, more rounded, like most everybody wants anyway.
You can *test* Boolean failures, by running a Grasshopper intersection command, to see the intersection curves, and zoom in to see how badly many of them are, all knotted, or twisted, or even with gaps, often with gaps.
It's a math problem nobody at McNeel wants to solve, sorry.
Just write a check for $25K and spend six months taking notes, like I did, and you can merge your simple spheres finally.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:33pm on October 20, 2015
sistance of radiative and convective heat transfer through the _filmCoefficient input on the "Create Therm Boundaries" component. This filmCoefficient in W/m2K represents the "U-Value" of the air film between the edge of the THERM materials and the surrounding environment that is at the specified _temperature. The extra resistance from this air film is why the full construction U-Value that you are getting out of THERM is a lower than just the (conductivity of material) / (depth of the material). Accounting for air films is particularly important when you get constructions that have a high overall conductivity (like a single pane window), since almost all of the resistance of such a construction is due to the air films.
To elaborate further, you might have noticed that, in the example files on hydra, I set this filmCoefficient to be either "indoor" or "outdoor", which basically uses some code that I wrote to autocalculate the film coefficient for you. I take into account both the emissivity of the material at the boundary (which gives you more air film resistance for lower emissivities) as well as the orientation of the boundary in the 3D space of the Rhino model. The code I wrote will take these parameters and match them to those published in ASHRAE Fundementals, which you can see in table 1 of the first page of this PDF:
http://edge.rit.edu/content/C09008/public/2009%20ASHRAE%20Handbook
I interpolate between these values in the event that your emissivity is not 0.05, 0.2, 0.9 or the orientation of your boundary is not any one of the 5 that they give.
I know that THERM also has the capability to actually run the radiative and convective formulas that you posted, Mauricio, as opposed to just using a single film coefficient to account for all of this resistance. The running of these formulas is particularly useful is the radiant temperature at the boundary is different than the air temperature. However, as long as you are ok with this assumption that the air and radiant temperatures are the same (which is the case for all of the situations that I have encountered), the film coefficient is perfectly sufficient. If anyone ever has need for this capability of running boundary conditions that have different radiant and air temperatures, please post here and I can think of a way to implement it. I rather like the simplicity of the current interface, though, and I think that I will keep it this way until we understand the purposes for why someone would need separate radiant and air temperatures.
-Chris…
would like to ask someone with patience, time and disposition for a definition of maximum displacement, resulting force of gravity and internal elastic energy. I know that these topics appear on the Karamba manual, however the explanation is quick and brief and I, and perhaps some others, can´t grasp completely what are they and how they work.
Secondly I would like to ask advice on how to deal the problem of minimizing the quantity of material used and keeping the structure strength in an acceptable range.
Those were my two questions. Now I am going to explain the definition that I am working on in order to show how this relates to the problem I am trying to solve.
I am trying to optimize a column made of plastic, which is intended to be fabricated in a 3D printer. I have created a grasshopper definition that lets me customize plenty of options (height, width, number of sides, number of divisions, type of interconnections, etc… ).
Image 1 can provide a quick look of what I am trying to do.
I am using galapagos to fine-tune some of the values in order to achieve the best possible structure that can withstand a certain arbitrary weight (for example 100 Kg) within acceptable deformation values and use the least possible material.
Perhaps the key values that I am letting Galapagos manipulate are the number of division in plan and section of the column.
The problem arises when I choose to optimize by minimizing the maximum displacement, which is the most common case in tutorials and examples.
Galapagos naturally tends to divide the column in the maximum number of section that I allow (which is logical since it creates more beams and minimizes their lenght), image 2 provides an example of the minimum and maximum number of division that I am allowing.
This solution (empirically) seems wasteful. I believe that the real solution to the problem (sustaining an arbitrary weight without failing and most importantly using the less possible material) must be between the two columns presented in image 2.
Thank you guys for your help and for reading such a long post.
Sincerely
Diego…