n splitting curves and then join them to create the region; but I'am looking for a more straightforward solutions. 3- I know some plugins like clipper could do this, but I'm looking for more flexible solutions.
4- I tried Brep[] CreatePlanarBreps(IEnumerable<Curve>) in ghpython, but it doesn't work.
…
precise) that unfortunately has more than one staff. This means that I pay the bills (unfortunate to the max). Practice is vertical meaning no Structural/HVAC etc services.
2. AEC Projects are made by teams. Period.
3. Teams are organized with some sort of hierarchy. Period.
4. On each team there's always one leader. Teams can being sampled in group teams - call them clusters (kinda like a List of List of ...)
5. All cluster leaders report to the supreme human being (yours truly). Leader heads are always on my disposal (it's fun to decapitate someone: I do this every Monday).
6. AEC projects are made with 1% idea(s) and 99% of what we call "sludge" (this is not my job: I'm the One , he he).
7. You can't steer any boat if you don't know each @@$#@ nut and bold. In the past there was a naive approach on that matter (ruined automotive companies, potato chip makers, software vendors, political systems, secret service agencies ... etc etc).
8. Efficiency is above all (even above tax-free cash).
9, You can't do ANY AEC real-life thing with what GH has to offer (nor Rhino is an AEC BIM app - it would never be). You simply use GH as a supplement to Generative Components (and/or as stand alone because it's good fun). There's nothing that GH does (I'm speaking solely for AEC as always) that can't being done with Generative Components.
10. I've done so fat 257 projects (a "bit" bigger than a house, he he). Let's say about 51427 drawings (master, master details, details) and 78956 lines of text (specs, cost estimations, space schedules, supplier lists, contracts, cats and 1 dog).
If you combine all the above you'll have the answer (i.e. why I use solely - if possible - code and not GH components). If you can't combine them I'm sorry.
PS: C# is the absolute standard (never judge a language as a "stand-alone" thingy).
best, Peter (Prince of Cynics)
…
file. A TSpline made thing in fact.
2. This atroci ... er ... hmm ... I mean unspeakable beauty uses an exo-skeletal load bearing structure hence is THAT big (BTW: Apparently nobody knows what thermal bridge is nor thermal expansion nor vapor condensation ... but these are "minor" details these holly blob days, he he).
3. 2 means that some nodes of that "grid" MUST "meet" floors in order to support them and (hopefully) withstand some seismic forces. BTW: A Richter scale 9 (for an hour) is all what this building actually needs (that's acid "humor").
4. The "smarter" way to do this is to spread "some" (i.e a lot) random points (Note: David's algo yields "evenly-spaced-points" within the limits of the possible) on the guide blob (a polysurface in fact).
5. Then ... you need some algo that tests proximity AND "adjusts" the Z in order to have some node points "co-planar" (Z) with the floors.
6. Then you triangulate all that stuff (the points, that is) using some decent Ball Pivot Algorithm (NOT Delauney) and you get a triangulated mesh that "engulfs" the guide blob. If you want some quads (as shown) this is also possible.
7. So you have edges ... i.e poly lines (per mesh face) and if you offset them ... you have "drilling" profiles that you must use against a second guide "thickened" blob for creating a continuously smooth exo-skeletal LBS (as shown). Of course Rhino (being a surface modeller) could require years to do this solid difference opp (or an eternity).
8. Rounding the "lips" of that LBS Brep is out of question with Rhino or GH (but it can been done very easily using other apps). Then you must "split" the Brep (in modules? in nodes + "rodes"? you tell me) in order to make it in real-life (what about forgetting all that?, he he).
9. Then, there's the glazing thingy that is made via quads meaning planarity. This is achievable with Kangaroo2 but is a bit tricky.
Moral: WHAT a gigantic pile of worms is this thread of yours...
more soon.
…
You can create Design Options using the Iris Layer component!
For each set of geometries that you create, you can assign a layer and define whether it will be visible or not in Virtual Reality on the
Added by IrisVR to IrisVR at 8:34am on January 23, 2017
the contours they show are all generated from 3 arc second SRTM files, even if in the United States where higher resolution data is available from 1 arc second. Also the contours are likely 2D in their map since. Granted, their contours may look nicer, but I think it's just because they're processing the HGT file with the GDAL Contour app to generate a Shapefile.
That being said, starting last year the USGS started releasing 1 arc second SRTM data for the rest of the world outside of the US. It's not the friendliest website, but I've been accessing it from here (be warned it will probably take a few minutes to load). You could download the appropriate tile and use the SRTM Topo component and get better looking resolution than you've seen with the 3 arc second data.
There's also the possibility you could do the same thing OSM is doing, but with the higher resolution data. Download the GDAL library and run the gdal_contour.exe file on the 1 arc second HGT file and you'll get a shapefile with all the contours. Elk doesn't directly work with shape files, but you could use Meerkat GIS to import the shapefile. I've only done a few quick tests, but I've had trouble with the scaling with this method, both using Meerkat and using Autodesk's Map3d to read the shapefile, so perhaps it's my inexperience with gdal_contour. It also looks like it's making the 1°x1° tile's square instead of scaling the X values as it goes farther from the equator. Nothing that's insurmountable, but still you should watch out for it.
Regards,
-Tim
…
(http://www.food4rhino.com/app/quelea-agent-based-design-grasshopper) take like 40 seconds when the toggle activates to go from one end of the ramp to another.
With proximity 3d i'm analyzing each instance the agents are closer than x units. In picture 3 we can see that in 212 instances the agent are closer than those x units.
Finally all the genes that controll the ramps are connected to the G of octopus component and one of the conflicting objectives connected to the O of octopus component is the number of instance quelea agents get close.
So the thing I need is to iterate the ramps controling the genes with octopus but activating the boolean toggle (quelea run) each time the ramps are modified so the agents take 40 seconds to perambulate the environment, analyze the instance they get close and let octopus iterate again searching for a optimized environment.
…
mations we use a STANDARD thingy (Plane.WorldXY) VS any other plane (that's what the Orient does). This applies for blocks/cats/dogs/anything: meaning that if anyone in the present or the future uses such a "component" he knows the origin (especially if other CAD apps are used in parallel).
2. NEVER EVER make a thing (i.e. the profile) to be oriented "off center" (in the occasion domain start/end values for x/y). If you want to do that treat the destination plane accordingly. That way you build up a mentality were the "source" is standard - so to speak.
3. RHS (but HEB/HEA/IPN/IPE blah, blah) fillets are related with thickness (in real-life) ... therefore when you offset (always inwards: meaning neg values for counter clock wise closed curves) ... take into consideration that simple fact.
…
-life fabrication issues ... then ... well ... that's the reason for the Skype.
2. In general I would say that exploiting parametric "arrangements" (in the broad sense) is less than 5% of the whole ... given the fact that in real-life there's a lot of other constrains. Again using Kim's IKEA note: for instance packaging (at least for the magnitude of IKEA's business) is rather more important than ANY smart of stupid design.
3. Reliable components VS Design/Manufacturing cost IS the ultimate "fitness" challenge: this involves bottom-top design disciplines (not doable with Rhino/GH by any means) and ... well... some top dog feature driven MCAD app. Most makers/designers use the cheapo alternatives (SolidWorks/Creo etc etc) and the results ... well .. you get what you've paid for, he he.
4. Why bottom-top may you ask? (and what means this anyway?) Well ... one "connecting node" that would been made 1Z times at the minimum cost possible is a 100 times more challenging task than designing a shelve system that uses that node. See for instance A LOT of IKEA solutions (i.e. the nuts and bolts of them) that are exceptionally flimsy, very badly designed and ... well ... suitable for 1 week's usage (but there's some others that are less faulty). On the other hand IKEA actually serves the ephemeral ... thus ... this MAY be intentional (recycle > buy > recycle > buy > ...).
I buy therefor I exist.
For instance a certain IKEA mold injected "multi join node" for a given series of shelves ... it would sustain less than 5 minutes "abuse" (in case that someone would attempt to "rearrange" things). Moral: reality and theory ARE not the same thing.
I could continue until the end of Time listing "aspects" of the whole puzzle related with production issues ... but for the moment I would conclude by the following:
GH is a good "general" purpose graphic editor and Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modelling app. If you combine these 2 ... you can easily outline what you can and what you can't (or shouldn't) do on that subject.…