cles always had only position (3 degrees of translational freedom).
Now they can also optionally have an orientation (3 degrees of rotational freedom), which are updated by the solver at each iteration.
This makes possible new types of goals based on these orientations. The first example of this is a more robust rigid body component, and collision between pairs of rigid bodies. These can be any closed solids, and do not need to be convex.
In coming weeks I will be posting more examples of Goals which make use of the 6dof nodes, including some scripted ones.
…
lines, dedicated MCAD apps, BIM apps, team work AND elevators as well: if you design something "variable" and then attempt to service it via a "static way" (Revit) you'll discover that you are wasting your time. I can list you a lot of WOW towers that failed on that (elevator) matter ... but this wouldn't be polite for the designers: so let's continue.
2. The other critical thing is the system that does the skin: since "liquid" is the new WOW (it shouldn't) the task of "faceting" a facade and doing it with a system that doesn't leak (in the long term), doesn't pop the panels out of the frames and it doesn't cost the GNP of Nigeria ... well ... is not that simple.
3. It's a very common mistake for some future Architect to "skip" (even mentally) "trivial" matters like these ... but if you get used on this type of thinking you'll gonna pay a heavy price (as an Architect).
So my advise is: whilst you are after "form(s)" sketch frantically the nuts and bits of that form (not to mention ... er ... hmm... the elevators, he he).
best…
ceros. Parametrización, panelización y análisis en Grasshopper, así como el proceso de manufactura digital para maquinaria de corte Láser y CNC.
UN solo pago anticipado $4,000.00
Pagos diferidos $4,500.00*
*reserva tu lugar con el 50%
Martes y Jueves de 7 a 10 PM
Del 15 de Mayo al 14 de junio
DURACION: 30 HORAS
SESIONES: 10 DE 3 HORAS
o info@dimensiontallerdigital.com
informes al 55 (50 16 0634) con Mayri Gallegos (o al cel. 55 28 85 24 73)
$4,000.00…
emble machines (and require custom Articles for specs, cost pre-estimation and the likes).
Putting yourself against that "forest" you should answer the question N1: you want to just use (the unsafe option) these or cross the Rubicon and collaborate in some way with the software vendors? (the safe option plus numerous benefits: knowing what's in the pipeline years ago, solving bugs in no time etc etc etc).
The question N2 is: do you get involved (or you want to) in "developing" all that the one way or the other? If yes using what "platform"? (so to speak).
The question N3 is: what are your estimations concerning the future in our trade? (count the tremendous acceleration of things as well plus the unavoidable AI factor (sooner or later)).
By answering these 3 ... you can easily answer the other questions of yours.
Bad news: future is past already.…
xtract picture frames with one small app[adapter]. I get a total of 131 images, [ So in fact they are the same as screenshot] and I use this image as imagery to 3d photogrammetry. Probably this is incorrect, but it's how far I can go without drones in place.…
th a graphic editor (GH) hosted in a CAD app that has primitive assembly/component capabilities and/or feature driven ops (Rhino). Did I've mentioned that Rhino is a surface modeler? (meaning the obvious).
3. Imagine a "seed" collection of assemblies related with various membrane components made in SW. Say: geometry (prior solid ops) and parameters (the feature driven part of the equation, in most of cases managed with some RDBMS). You should port these to GH (a variety of ways exist for that) and create the bare minimum of "solids" in GH as instance definitions. There's 2 main reasons to do that: (a) effectively communicating back on an assemply/component schema (via STEP) and ... (b) achieving manageable collections when in GH. These are critical for clash detection (when outlining some topology in GH, therefore NEVER work just with "curves") and "variation" control of some sort (up to a point). Of course for high class designs (where the devil hides in the details) this is NOT the best imaginable solution ... you'll need CATIA for such an integrated (all in one) procedure. On the other hand many could (wrongly) argue that CATIA is expensive (rather naive argument if a company has a certain turnover).
4. So, in general I would strongly suggest to use instance definitions of items in some sort of "intermediate state" of detail (an 100% undoable task without code) structured in such a way (classic assembly/component MCAD mentality blah, blah) that SW could take benefit of a possible modified "base topology" and proceed by finishing variations of the given assembly (feature driven stuff as usual).
5. Then export (STEP 214) back portions of the assemblies (and parameters used) to R/GH if and when this is required (for instance for BIM disciplines ... but Rhino is not a BIM app, nor it would ever be).
6. If you are familiar with code matters ... start thinking the whole puzzle that way, if not my advise is to find someone to design such a "procedure" (say an "app") using solely code, but this is not a task for the inexperienced by any means.
best, Peter…
gt; most probably > adios Amigos.
3. WP Loop VS ... > see above
4. Daniel VS ... > see above.
There's other dedicated apps for handling huge amount of data (using very fast ball pivot algorithms for dealing with the gazillion of points).…
The generic problem with the 2 apps that support dependent modelling (MS, Rhino) is that they are both very poor in Assembly/Component concepts/tools/you name it. Defining topology is one thing...but real life projects demand a bit more than that.
…