ears many bridges had been constructed and even more has collapsed or has been destroyed. Today Warsaw is connected by eight road bridges and two rail bridges, only few of them have a bike lanes. Modern cities are going through rapid changes. Hamburg has announced that in less than 20 years they are closing the center for cars, Copenhagen notes major incrementation in bike use, city bike system has been successfully introduced to many Polish cities. Warsaw bicycle net path is still very weak and probably the most urgent issue is to build a new bridge overpassing the Vistula River. This year Warsaw City Council decided to run an architectural competition for a new bridge. Architecture for Society of Knowledge and Architektura Informacyjna, Master's Programs of Architecture Faculty of Warsaw University of Technology, and Architektura Parametryczna, a digital design educational platform, invite for workshop: Outcome: The primary goal of workshops is to find the most optimal position for new bicycle bridge (or bridges) in Warsaw to enhance the global accessibility and Walkscore. During the workshop the participants will develop an interactive tool that will help to understand the accessibility changes by connecting Vistula shores with bicycle bridges. Program: Four days event will include coding part and learning how to apply digital tools into urban scale problems along with lectures of invited guests. This workshop is planned for intermediate user that understand and use Grasshopper. The workshop will be conducted in English. Tools: SOFTWARE Rhinoeros, Grasshopper, Silverye, Elk, Shortest Walk, Human, gHowl, Unity HARDWARE: Multimedia tool a multimedia tool designed by Jacek Markusiewicz for data representation and design in VR Tutors: Jacek Markusiewicz is an architect graduated from Warsaw University of Technology and the Master in Advanced Architecture at IaaC Barcelona. He specializes in fields of parametric architecture, programming and responsive design. He has been working on different projects combining parametric approach and urban scale in international offices in Barcelona, Warsaw and Beirut. He is a PhD candidate at Warsaw University of Technology. Adrian Krezlik Is an architect, co-founder of Architektura Parametryczna a platform dedicated to promotion of parametric design and digital fabrication, he has worked for Zaha Hadid Architects, FR-EE Fernando Romero and Michel Rojkind, he teaches at School of Form in Poznan. Tution fee: Warsaw University of Technology 420pln Polish Students 470 pln Polish Professionals 550 pln International Students 160 EUR International Professionals 220 EUR All the prices include VAT.…
sshopper for the developable surface problem. Thanks for connecting me to those discussions on it. Those images are fantastic!Andrew, I took inspiration from your approach and my ran with it! This works for my curve set: Here's what's going on. We can see the curve C as a graph above some plane P, and we'd like to find the local maxima, ie, it's critical points. We segment C into smooth, convex segments and use the Extremes component to locate the global maxima of each segment. This can include the endpoints of segments as artifacts, which we filter out. Now we have only genuine critical points of C with respect to P. We also check the endpoints that we filtered out earlier. If a tangent at one these points is perpendicular to P's normal vector, the point is in fact critical, and is included in the final point stream.
The pro of this is that it uses Extremes as the 'workhorse', and this component is likely to use an efficient and numerically robust zero/maxima finding algorithm, such as bisection, or Brent's method.The con is that it requires curves to be segmented at their inflection points, and for each segment to turn less than one full rotation around any line whatsoever that is parallel to P. Note that segmenting curves in these ways are interesting and useful problems in their own rights. Without this kind of segmentation, my approach will in general fail to extract some critical points on splines with inflection points, and on curves such as helixes or spirals. However, arc-segmented polylines naturally have these properties, and these are enough for my purposes for now.
In a different direction, I think I will try the method of bisection to extend your curve subdividision / dot product graphing approach. Essentially we'd sample the curve, use your dot product graph construction to find regions that we know will contain a zero crossing, subsample on those regions, and repeat the process until we've hit floating point precision for the result. This probably takes around 20 to 50 iterations. But it would give the highest quality results possible, and likely be far more stable than any dubious, inflection-point-splitting, wild-turn-avoiding, subtle-bug-inducing approach that I'll come up with otherwise, hah.Andrew, thanks for the code and inspiration!…
I thought the easiest way (and really tight deadline now) was c4d mesh deformer because it lets one choose a cage object, so I modeled this "rig", essentially a mesh of 20 carefuly measured points to see how exact the real thing is to the 3d model. My plan is to deform the entire mesh from source (3d model) to target (meaured low resolution mesh = "rig" )
(above two images : C4D test... work with a spheric cage - but not with a mesh I modelled in rhino)
C4D Mesh Deformer doesn't work with the cage geometry like this because I think the cage geometry actually need to be larger and be more like a cage, but of course I can't measure Imaginary cage off this thing :)
So I am asking for a suggestion for any quick tool like mesh deform in c4d, or how one might go about it with grasshopper... with some coding.
Thanks!
Youngjae
…
ich is the following :
"in a box", i would like to create structure made by wooden blades that follow floor, wall and ceiling, but moving from this support due to "curves" which are the most important variables.
Here is my "logic". You will find enclosed to this post my files as well.
In bold what i'm unable to do by myself (i guess) :
Take the square of 25 m x 12 m ; make it a surface
I divide it in "blades" of 20 cm
I take the edges of the "blades"
I divide this edges in 40 points (or equivalent) (A)
I identify my curves (curves) which are on the floors
I identify the crosspoint between my edge-blade and the curves (B)
I have to test the difference between X Y Z of each A and B.
I have to test which B point is the closest of each A
Each A points which is close to B (Distance < 40 cm) must be on the floor
I have to input a math formula in order to représent the movement of A points regarding their distance to B (example : A1 Z = Distance between A1 and B / 2)
If there are 2+ B, that mean that i have "to do something" to get a correct movement. I mean
2 consecutives points must be on the same "plan"
2 height difference between each point must be 0 or a dedicated value
Regarding Ceiling, it is a duplication of the floor but there is coef to apply with Z distance.
2 parallele points on a define axis, example : X, and consecutive can't have more than 20cm of difference
When all points have moves regarding "parameters" and "curves"; i have to do curve linking all the point of a same "line".
After that i duplicate this curve to a upper curve.
Loft
Extrude surface and then, it's done ?
To be clear, i miss the part where i need to make my points move regarding variables...
I'm sorry, RHI Grasshopper projet.3dm does not represent the "need" to have to consecutive point on the same plan
…
arq, que se celebrará entre el 28 de Enero y el 1 de Febrero de 2013 en el Colegio de Arquitectos de Granada.
El taller está destinado a arquitectos, artistas y diseñadores, tanto como profesionales, como estudiantes de grado y posgrado, que, sin necesidad de haber tenido ningún contacto previo con entornos de programación o herramientas informáticas de dibujo paramétrico o generativo, están interesados en probar y experimentar con las opciones que nos pueden ofrecer a los diseñadores.
El taller está dividido en tres bloques:
Curso intensivo: del 28 de Enero al 30 de Febrero, en horario de mañana, de 10 a 14. Taller de proyectos: del 28 de Enero al 30 de Febrero, por la tarde, de 16 a 20; y el 31 de Febrero, durante todo el día.
Presentaciones: viernes 1 de Febrero, mañana y tarde.
Utilizaremos Grasshopper, el editor algorítmico asociado al software de modelado tridimensional y dibujo Rhinoceros, por su facilidad de aprendizaje, al tratarse de un entorno gráfico, facilidad de adquisición, al ser gratuito y haber disponible una versión de prueba de Rhinoceros también gratuita, y amplia difusión en los últimos años. Y lo emplearemos tanto como modelador, como conector entre otros softwares y varias disciplinas. Por este motivo, también utilizaremos algunos de sus plug-ins, como Geco, para análisis ambiental, Elk, para enlazarlo con OpenStreetMap o Kangaroo, para simulación de sistemas físicos.
Lo único que necesitas es un ordenador portátil (si no pudieras conseguir), hacer el ingreso con el importe correspondiente y mandarnos tus datos y el recibo bancario del ingreso a smartlabgranada@gmail.com. Puedes ver los detalles en el apartado de Inscripción. El resto del material, tanto software como hardware, lo ponemos nosotros.
Nuestro acercamiento a estas herramientas es entusiasta acerca del potencial creativo que pueden ofrecer a diseñadores y artistas, pero también crítico y especulativo. Nos alejamos tanto de una posición puramente formalista, como del estricto funcionalismo, a los que desde los últimos años frecuentemente se ha asociado a esta disciplina.…
Added by Miguel Vidal at 8:42am on January 19, 2013
ts in extreme aliasing effects that carry into the 3D realm as regular steps along what should be smooth surfaces.
On sleeping on it, I realized I hadn't yet tried fast Unary Force on fine quad meshes from the standard Grasshopper meshing system that includes the meshing options component.
Bingo! It's fast now. Workable. I don't need super fine meshing since I'm not running from aliasing. I can still use rather fine local meshes since Unary Force lets Kangaroo do a simple thing just in the Z direction rather than a full 3D force.
After only a minute or so of Kangaroo initialization that slows the interface, each of a dozen needed cycles takes half a second, FOR THE ENTIRE GRAPHIC.
I just set the timer to 1 second so I can move around the interface, and I double click the Windows taskbar timer shut-off to enjoy the result.
WHILE RUNNING VIA TIMER, IF I CHANGE A SPRING/FORCE SETTING IT SUFFERS NO DELAY AT ALL AND JUST ALTERS THE OUTPUT OVER TIME. I can change Unary Force from 20 to 100 and immediately see the bigger areas balloon like crazy:
It's fast enough overall to play with, yet the individual steps are slow enough that it's fun to watch the hysteresis as it overshoots back from 100 to 20 Unary Force, going concave in the middle of bulges then back to more shallow hills.
A force of 1000 is a bit disturbing, I wonder if I can tamp it down with greater spring strength or will that just give me the same result as before?
Looks like it's the same, just the ratio matters. Makes sense I guess. At one point it blew up though. Hitting the reset button...a minute later it blows up again...and just doesn't like huge numbers, so I don't see an advantage playing with bombs. The high mesh strength is pulling the mesh apart.
With low Unary Force and moderate mesh tension, you get flat tops, as if the overall force on the mesh fighting its anchored edge vertices, is enough to displace it, but the surface itself is too stiff to care about local gravity.
Then you have less flat areas as you increase Unary Force:
Weird, there *is* some sort of absolute effects, rather than just relative, between Unary Force and spring stiffness, since now I'm getting flat tops even in the extreme:
Oh, wait, strike that, I may be seeing but a single step with the timer off, subject to hysteresis. With the timer back on...it can sit there a minute...not locked up but just idling...until you see the Display > Widgets > Profiler time start cycling to near half minute numbers...makes you want to hit the reset button...and indeed that locks the interface for another initialization...and yes, it was merely hysteresis, not an equilibrium result. My former flat tops may have been due to that too, due to my use of the Windows taskbar timer disabler. The lesson is that you can obtain different results by using a long timer setting and just stopping it before it equilibrates.
This script is a keeper, fast and fun after the relatively mild Kangaroo initialization period is over.
The uniform mostly quad meshing is all done in Grasshopper too, from any flat surface with holes, especially from images of shapes that are traced with potrace to give surfaces with holes.
Could I switch to hex meshes from triangular meshes to do the same thing with fewer vertices?
Are there other forces I can add to smooth the bulging? Letting things bulge is not so bad if you then just scale down the result in Z afterwards (though perhaps the same result could be had with lesser force):
Also, can this same thing be done with possibly faster Kangaroo 2?…
Added by Nik Willmore at 10:02pm on February 21, 2016
rring to the above image)
Area
effective
effective
Second
Elastic
Elastic
Plastic
Radius
Second
Elastic
Plastic
Radius
of
Vy shear
Vz shear
Moment
Modulus
Modulus
Modulus
of
Moment
Modulus
Modulus
of
Section
Area
Area
of Area
upper
lower
Gyration
of Area
Gyration
(strong axis)
(strong axis)
(strong axis)
(strong axis)
(strong axis)
(weak axis)
(weak axis)
(weak axis)
(weak axis)
A
Ay
Az
Iy
Wy
Wy
Wply
i_y
Iz
Wz
Wplz
i_z
cm2
cm2
cm2
cm4
cm3
cm3
cm3
cm
cm4
cm3
cm3
cm
I have a very similar table which I could import to the Karamba table. But I have i_v or i_u values as well as radius of inertia for instance.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
dimensjon
Masse
Areal
akse
Ix
Wpx
ix
akse
Iy
Wpy
iy
akse
Iv
Wpv
iv
Width
Thickness
Radius R
[kg/m]
[mm2]
[mm4]
[mm3]
[mm]
[mm4]
[mm3]
[mm]
[mm4]
[mm3]
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
[mm]
L 20x3
0.89
113
x-x
4,000
290
5.9
y-y
4,000
290
5.9
v-v
1,700
200
3.9
20
3
4
L 20x4
1.15
146
x-x
5,000
360
5.8
y-y
5,000
360
5.8
v-v
2,200
240
3.8
20
4
4
L 25x3
1.12
143
x-x
8,200
460
7.6
y-y
8,200
460
7.6
v-v
3,400
330
4.9
25
3
4
L 25x4
1.46
186
x-x
10,300
590
7.4
y-y
10,300
590
7.4
v-v
4,300
400
4.8
25
4
4
L 30x3
1.37
175
x-x
14,600
680
9.1
y-y
14,600
680
9.1
v-v
6,100
510
5.9
30
3
5
L 30x4
1.79
228
x-x
18,400
870
9.0
y-y
18,400
870
9.0
v-v
7,700
620
5.8
30
4
5
L 36x3
1.66
211
x-x
25,800
990
11.1
y-y
25,800
990
11.1
v-v
10,700
760
7.1
36
3
5
L 36x4
2.16
276
x-x
32,900
1,280
10.9
y-y
32,900
1,280
10.9
v-v
13,700
930
7.0
36
4
5
L 36x5
2.65
338
x-x
39,500
1,560
10.8
y-y
39,500
1,560
10.8
v-v
16,500
1,090
7.0
36
5
5
I have diagonals (bracings) which can buckle in these "non-regular" directions too, and they do. If I could add those values then in the Karamba model I could assign specific buckling scenarios..... I can see another challenge which will be at the ModifyElement component, I will not be able to choose these buckling lengths, in these directions.
Do you think this functionality can be added within short, or should I try to find another way to model these members?
Br, Balazs
…
h tubes are redundant so surfaces overlap instead of interpenetrate, so it is not a good system.
Cocoon is the best answer these days unless you can get Exowire/Exoskelton to work. If you want more control over shape, feed your uncapped tubes into Cocoon as meta-surfaces and delete any and all of the inner meshes to just keep the outer single closed one, but this is just duplicate-culled lines used as meta-lines:
Turn down the CS input to 0.005 for this result, from 0.02 used for faster preview. In fact bake the lines and only test Cocoon on a few of them in order to get the result you want before doing the whole thing.
Whole thing at 0.005 cell size takes 5 minutes for Cocoon and 2 minutes for refinement to a smooth and even mesh.
Actually, seems like 0.005 is way too fine, giving a 600MB STL file.
So, 0.01 cell size at less than a minute total:
159MB STL which is still a bit too big for places like Shapeways. Wow. OK then 0.02 cell size, but I have to increase diameter or my two smoothing steps in refine collapse things too much, an in fact I set it to no smoothing, getting more volume and a reasonable 46MB STL file:
Alas, now it's more frail and overly organic rather than mechanical. Increasing diameter just merges it into perforated plates too much. File size is simply an issue with this complexity level, so different 3D printing services will have different file size limits.
Exowire/Exoskeleton would work but your original mesh hasn't been MeshMachine remeshed to be regular, so short segments ruin it. Here is just a corner:
I think that's why more wires fails, at least. Pretty temperamental component.
Switching to MeshMachine is needed, I guess, instead of Cocoon refine, to remesh away so many small triangles along the boring tubes. Crucial for good remeshing was to set Flip to 0 or I failed to get a rough enough mesh.
It's an adaptive mesh so I can retain good detail while roughing out the tubes.
MeshMachine is terribly slow for this whole thing, like 6 minutes, and blows up for this overly rough setting, 20 steps, so less rough, ugh, I'm out of time. I think free Autocad Meshmixer is the way to make a better smaller mesh, after a refined output from Cocoon. MeshMachine is just too slow to tweak and when it blows up, creating massive triangles jutting out, it hangs too when you change settings.
Starting with a Cocoon refined mesh certainly helped Meshmixer. Using triangle budget lets me have full control. Here is 150K triangles instead of 200K:
STL file size down to 40MB. I think Shapeways is 70 or 100MB limit? So it can be even finer. Here is the Cocoon output versus the Meshmixer reduction:
To use Meshmixer, turn on View > Show Wireframe, Command-S to select all and use Edit > Reduce from the palette that appears.
Cocoon can end up making a few inner meshes where things get weird in your uneven original mesh with small holes so fish out the main mesh by adding a List Item node.
The best strategy for Cocoon is indeed to make an overly fine STL so you avoid any need to tweak forever in Grasshopper, but then you can achieve a smaller mesh file size while preserving shape instead of things turning all smearly organic in Grasshopper.…
of the point cloud. It is super quick, compared to what you have seen so far in Rhino, to load and display point clouds, as it works on multiple threads. Amongst others you can section the point cloud for referencing your footbridge, decimate it as needed for creating the enviroment, denoise it, clip and save parts of point clouds etc. You can right click the cloud components, giving you access to dynamic preview of the cloud, so that it does not drag in viewport while panning and zooming and at the same time controlling the "thickness" of the points in viewport, in case your camera gets close to the point cloud. It is a matter of visual preference.
I think that even 200mil points can be loaded with volvox.
Some references
12million points
13million points
13million points (right click dynamic settings low thickness)
13million points (right click dynamic settings high thickness)
15 million points (around 20sec!! to l0ad)
My pc (i7 3820, 32gb ram, gtx670 4gb) felt comfortable working with up to 15 mil point clouds. But that has to do with hardware along with your patience while working.
All clouds have been loaded as .txt files where the mask describing the info was x,y,z,r,g,b,u,v,w. Depends on how your data is in-text formatted.
You can check fly through animations all done with gh and Volvox here
(starting @~2:20)
best
alex
…