lconcepts in parametric design and exercises using Rhino, Grasshopper, andPython. Each of the 3 workshops corresponds to learning different software skillsthe softwares and applying those skills to a creative design challenge.…
ts of polylines (between open nodes and/or nodes with higher than 2 valence).
Easy ... but if I use Sandbox for the line graph connectivity trees and the likes ... that thing yields some freaky/faulty results: see node 11 (from Point to point connectivity) that reports that point 11 is connected ...er ... with itself (life sucks: but nothing serious, just another check is required).
…
tandard and use as an "all-purpose-pallette".
Another interesting interface feature, which can, in itself solve the first issue, is to have a quick and easy way to split the GH window in 2, and run 2 defs in parallel, (or 2 viewports of the same def). Coupled with the possibility to configure GH to start with a template instead of "new", this would give a great "personalised workspace" feeling to any user. You would have you own little set up tools, bits of algorithm, whatever. I mean, a pallette would be cooler, by i'm guessing this is easier to implement and can be useful for other stuff.
Cheers!…
ber of mesh vertices is defined as (precision_+1)^2.So if you would like to have its beam, diffuse and ground-reflected components as well, that means 3 * 8760 values per single point.Example: if you set your precision_ input to 20, the number of values would be a couple of millions:
(20+1)^2 * 8760 * 3 = 11 589 480 hourly values
Check the attached definition below. The outputs that you need are: "Ebeam", "Ediffuse", "Eground".They contain annual hourly values for each tilt and azimuth combination (that's what upper mesh vertices represent) in a data tree.…
lane that looks like the outline of a gear wheel
2. Scale a bunch of copies of the curve to different sizes (I use 11 different sized curves.)
3. Move each curve vertically to a different Z-height
4. Rotate each curve to get the desired wavy/wiggly effect
5. Create a Loft surface using all the curves.
A critical step when creating the Loft is to add the curves in order - either top to bottom or bottom to top.
Step 4 can be omitted if you want a constant curvature throughout the final part. In this case all you have to do is Twist by the desired amount the Loft surface made from un-rotated curves. …
Added by Birk Binnard at 2:18pm on October 15, 2016
Loop'. The fun part of the slower version is that you can see what it's doing while it's running. 'Fast Loop' gives no indication that it's working, so you want to test it with small numbers and be sure it's coded properly before bumping the iteration count up.
The GH profiler running the slow version showed between 1 and 1.5 seconds per loop, but the reality was more like ~10 seconds per loop toward the end of an 11 X 11 grid, or ~20 minutes total. It's easier to be patient because you know it's working.
The 'Fast Loop' finished the same grid in 1.6 minutes! An impressive improvement. I've been running it on a 30 X 30 grid (900 points) for ~23 minutes so far and see nothing yet. Not the ~12 minutes I had hoped for... Now 36 minutes on this loop for 900 points... hope it's not stuck. Not fast! Later - DONE!! Profiler says 59 minutes for 900 points but it was more like an hour and twenty minutes total. It succeeded, I have a single 'Closed Brep' from 900 extruded rings, baked to Rhino.
Another strategy to explore would be doing 'SUnion' on a smaller grid using the Anemone loop, then replicate it by moving it as needed to form a larger grid; then run the copies through another 'SUnion' loop. I went ahead and implemented that while waiting. It works and is fast! Started with 3 X 3 and ran the result again as 5 X 5 (9 X 25 = 225 total) in barely ~70 seconds!? Trying 36 X 36 now... 1,296 points appears to have succeeded in less than ten minutes! Though it seems to take quite awhile after the loop ends before control is restored to GH/Rhino. I'll let you do your own experiments and benchmarks.
I encapsulated the loop in a cluster called 'suLoop' (blue groups).
Internal of 'suLoop' cluster:
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 11:14pm on March 22, 2017
(18, 11, 0, 17), also put in the assembly component.
How can I know which value of the reaction forces correspond to which support?
In the manual is stated that when the reaction force component is used, than the values are displayed in ascending sequence of the corresponding nodes.So if I input the support nodes like thispoint with index 18point with index 11point with index 0point with index 17are the reaction forces displayed like this (per loadcase)?0 - reaction forces in point with index 01 - reaction forces in point with index 112 - reaction forces in point with index 183 - reaction forces in point with index 17
Thanks!
BestLara…