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.
.
Ulteriori info e programma completo su: www.arturotedeschi.com e su www.samilolab.it…
erencing it back into our main .gh file works normally (with full functionality) as long as all the files are on my local hard drive (e.g. "C:"). But as soon as I try to reference a .ghcluster or even open one saved on an external drive (our company's network drive) Rhino and Grasshopper instantly freeze und crash. Every time. No matter the file size.
We have already checked, if maybe whitespaces or dots in the file's path could have caused the crashes. But even eliminating them by renaming the folders doesn't fix the problem.
So obviously GH's clusters does not support referencing files from external network locations. Does anyone have an idea why? Were stuck here, because we want to severely increase the complexity of our project's main gh. file and enable more team members to contribute to the main file via external referenced cluster files.
Thanks for your help.
BB…
rep' to type 'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1[Rhino.Geometry.Brep]'. (line: 86)
This basically translates to: "I wanted a collection of Breps and you've given me a single brep". You'll need to put your cone and boundingbox into a collection. Easiest is to make an inline array:
Dim result As Brep() = Brep.CreateBooleanIntersection( _
New Brep() {cone}, _
New Brep() {boundingbox}, _
0.001)
I concur it should probably work on individual breps as well, I'll add those overloads to RhinoCommon.
-----------------------------
Dim volume As Double = rhino.geometry.VolumeMassProperties.Compute(result(0))
This is wrong. VolumeMassProperties.Compute() does not return a single number. It returns a new instance of the VolumeMassProperties class, which contains the volume, but also the error, the centroids, the moments of inertia and so on and so forth.
Dim vp As VolumeMassProperties = VolumeMassProperties.Compute(result(0))
A = vp.Volume
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
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…
e inner face temperatures (from 4 to 6; at 4 is similar)
I checked this early on to cross-reference it with the comf map outputs, and that's what led me to suspect something weird may be going on with them.
When you once again omit the schedule, air change and system setting assignment part of our script, you get the below comf map results:
Comf map output of CMAP script with ideal air / OS system, schedule and ac/h script section bypassed
When you set the programme in the CMAP script to Office:OpenOffice, you get an similar output:
Comf map output of CMAP script with ideal air / OS system, schedule and ac/h script section included, with Office:OpenOffice programme set
Once I switch to the MidriseAppartment:Appartment programme, even with the ideal air / OS system parameters bypassed in the script, I get the following:
Comf map output of CMAP script with ideal air / OS system, schedule and ac/h script section included, with Appartment schedule set (same output whether ideal air part settings excluded or not).
Having stared at this "the men who stare at goats" style for quite some time now, I think I see the pattern now; the difference between the apartment and office programme is in the loads, etc. which mods the surf temps, which changes the distribution (and that one result you had that looked totally different did not reappear).
As for the 'wash' of temperatures- yes.. granted, the U value of the glazing is pretty good; the spread of temperatures we are looking at is only about 0.3 degrees, on average.
Maybe that simply *is* the distribution, and the E+ radiance temp output snapshot leads me down a false cognitive avenue, priming me to expect a different distribution than actually present?
Best,
Max
…
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011
he picture (4).
Previously, I had a problem with generating intersections between the two directions of the beams, but a colleague helped me by extending beams, so there was no problem with lines of intersection. But this solution has generated curl (5) at the highest vertex geometry, which I ignored in order to repair it before printing, perhaps this mean my problem with my beam spread properly. Only when the beams is 19, does not jump no problem, but I still can not distribute them properly.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
I tried to show as simply as possible by removing or signing my code in GHX file.
Thank you in advance for your help
…
xamine triangle AOC: OX bisects angle AOC.
3. Since we know the angle AOC (equal to A'O'C, which we can derive from the projector's known settings) we can also construct point O" (by intersecting two arches on any plane).
4. If we revolve this point (O") around segment AC we get a collection of possible locations of O
5. Repeat steps 2-4 for the other triangle (BOD) and we get the second possible set of locations (a circle revolving around DB
6. Intersect the two circles and we get O
I tested this and it works. However I'm still looking for a more elegant, solution. The best thing would be to do it all in a scripting component.…
ers and researchers, programmers and artists, professionals and academics who come together for 4 days of intense collaboration, development, and design.
The sg2012 Workshop will be organised around Clusters. Clusters are hubs of expertise. They comprise of people, knowledge, tools, materials and machines. The Clusters provide a focus for workshop participants working together within a common framework.
Clusters provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, processes and techniques and act as a catalyst for design resolution. The Workshop is made up of ten Clusters that respond in diverse ways to the sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities.
Applicants to the sg2012 Workshop will select their preferred cluster from the following:
Beyond Mechanics
Micro Synergetics
Composite Territories
Ceramics 2.0
Material Conflicts
Transgranular Perspiration
Reactive Acoustic Environments
Form Follows Flow
Bioresponsive Building Envelopes
Gridshell Digital Tectonics
More information about the Workshop and Clusters can be found here:
http://smartgeometry.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=116&Itemid=131
The application process will close on January 15th, 2012.
Full Fee $1500
Reduced Fee $750
Scholarship Fee $350
Fees include attendance to both the workshop and conference from March 19th-24th.
Reduced Fee and Scholarships are available only for Academics, Students and Young Practitioners, and are awarded during a competitive peer review process.
sg2012 takes place from 19-24 March 2012 at EMPAC (http://empac.rpi.edu/) and is hosted by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, upstate New York USA. The Workshop and Conference will be a gathering of the global community of innovators and pioneers in the fields of architecture, design and engineering.
The event will be in two parts: a four day Workshop 19-22 March, and a public conference beginning with Talkshop 23 March, followed by a Symposium 24 March. The event follows the format of the highly successful preceding events sg2010 Barcelona and sg2011 Copenhagen.
sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities
Simulation, Energy, Environment
Imagine the design space of architecture was no longer at the scale of rooms, walls and atria, but that of cells, grains and vapour droplets. Rather than the flow of people, services, or construction schedules, the focus becomes the flow of light, vapour, molecular vibrations and growth schedules: design from the inside out.
The sg2012 challenge, Material Intensities, is intended to dissolve our notion of the built environment as inert constructions enclosing physically sealed spaces. Spaces and boundaries are abundant with vibration, fluctuating intensities, shifting gradients and flows. The materials that define them are in a continual state of becoming: a dance of energy and information. Material potential is defined by multiple properties: acoustical, chemical, electrical, environmental, magnetic, manufacturing, mechanical, optical, radiological, sensorial, and thermal. The challenge for sg2012 Material Intensities is to consider material economy when creating environments, micro-climates and contexts congenial for social interaction, activities and organisation. This challenge calls for design innovation and dialogue between disciplines and responsibilities. sg2010 Working Prototypes strove to emancipate digital design from the hard drive by moving from the virtual to the actual in wrestling with the tangible world of physical fabrication. sg2011 Building the Invisible focused on informing digital design with real world data. sg2012 Material Intensities strives to energise our digital prototypes and infuse them with material behaviour. They have the potential to become rich simulations informed by the material dynamics, chemical composition, energy flows, force fields and environmental conditions that feed back into the design process.
More information can be found at http://www.smartgeometry.org
Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/smartgeometry…
Added by Shane Burger at 12:29pm on December 13, 2011
o change a light bulb?
A. None. They all fear change!
Every single time Windows has brought out a significant update everyone I have ever met has greeted it with disdain, yet I couldn't imagine using the interface to windows 95 again... and I certainly couldn't imagine going back to using Explicit History again.
Personally I try to embrace the changes, but I often find that for a few of them several weeks will go by before I hate it or love it... and then give feedback.
I think air your view on specifics and you will get a lot of discussion from both sides of the equation so don't be afraid to speak up about it.…