ion of surfaces and/or "solids" : it's a very complex assembly of "components" either bespoke or widely available in the market. This demo combo summarizes the "common" cases (but the insulation for the opaque parts is WRONG 100%):
2. Contemporary trends (a bit of nonsense) point towards "liquid" forms. These ARE NOT made via "classic" linear systems. Very few actually can do it (I mean: do it yielding a building that doesn't leak]). Here's a totally wrong take on that matter from a very reputable Swiss facade maker:
And er ... hmm ... this :
3. Facade systems (curtain walls, that is) are classified in 4 classes: (a) the good old known humble stuff like the one shown in the first image (b) semi structural [yes], (c) structural [NO] and (d) planar frame-less systems.
4. Designing any proper facade is impossible with Rhino/GH: you'll need totally different software apps to do it - in real life - despite what most people believe/hope/wish.
5. Designing anything without a proper bottom-top approach (I.e. : first do the pistons then the engine) is the best recipe for not becoming (ever) a pro .…
need more code) AND in closed ones (see warnings).
2. The real stuff that I have in practice use solely C# code (even for Kangaroo2) and I have a strong feeling that this is not what you want (if you don't speak the language). It does that because GH is just a part (~10%) of the whole AEC arsenal (that is managed via C#) ... so everything must "fit" within the "general" production pipeline (code from some app "goes" to another with the fewer possible changes blah, blah).
So ... this attached could serve as an indicative guideline about the relaxation that Daniel does with his wonder thingy (Kangaroo, that is).
…
to carry out without them. We will go through these plugins learning how they work, main features and advantages playing with practical exercises.
We will highlight key concepts in advanced design, architecture and engineering: topology, form-finding, structural optimization, fractals, loops, genetic and repetitive algorithms...
Also, we will see how to capture nice views and designs from your scripting, with a correct export option, animations...
This course is On-line live sessions (18hours), using our platform online.controlmad.com
STRUCTURE:
- Interactive flexible geometry
- Generative design
- Reaction diffusion
- Geometry from DNA parameters
- Generative path visualization
- Growth simulation by sub-D
- Generating and genetic algorithms
- Visualization techniques
Main plug-ins shown:
> Kangaroo: The most famous and downloaded app for Grasshopper (it is built in the current Grasshopper for Rhino 6). It is a live physics engine interactive simulation, optimization and form-finding directly within Grasshopper
> Galapagos: available in the current Grasshopper build, it is a platform for the application of Evolutionary Algorithms to be used on a wide variety of problems by non-programmers
> Biomorpher: Interactive Evolutionary Algorithms (IEAs) helping designers to explore the wide combinatorial space of parametric models without always knowing where you are headed.
> Anemone: works using repetitive algorithms to create loops or sequencial structures like those ones seen in fractals.
Dates: July 10,11,17 and 18 (total 4 days)
Registration deadline: Monday, July 5th
Timetable: Saturday and Sunday 9,30 - 2pm (Madrid Time Zone CEST)…
Added by Diego Cuevas at 3:40am on September 11, 2018
le] demo):
1. A transformation Matrix is a 4*4 collection of 16 values that "deform" 3d things according the values in the cells. The orthodox way is to deploy "cells" left to right and top to bottom. Rhino does the opposite (why?) hence we need the transpose method.
2. Since "translate" and "perspective" are "symmetrical" the transpose boolean toggle (within the C#) "flips" rows with columns ... so we get perspective or move.
3. When in perspective "mode" the vanishing points are computed internally within a min/max limit (per X/Y/Z axis) thus avoiding the usual havoc with "extreme" perspective angles (very common "glitz" in pretty much every CAD app - CATIA excluded). Vanishing points (and limits) are oriented with respect the pos/neg value of a given control slider.
Note: slider values are percentages between min/max (mode: perspective) and/or actual values*100 (mode: move).
4.In order to start mastering the whole thing: don't change anything: just play with these 4 sliders selected:
5. The 123 sardine cans challenge: even with DeusExMachine = true (see inside C#: that one redirects the transformation per BrepFace and then joins the breps instead of applying it on a brep basis)... odd things (and/or invalid breps) occur ... thus what is required in order to make things working 100% ??.
he, he
best, Lord of Darkness …
work in both versions. I've tested them in Rhino 5 and they work on my machine. If your screen looks like CarloMaria's, can you double check that all of the .gha files and .dll's have been unblocked. To do this, right-click on each of those files (included in the installation folder) and select Properties. On the pop-up menu, at the bottom of the page, you should see a button that says Unblock (this only appears if they are currently being blocked). For some reason, downloading files off the internet causes some of the files to get blocked... and Rhino 5.0 is more picky about loading them in that instance. Let me know if that helps. Also (and I found this out recently from another user)... it's better if you don't have both 32-bit and 64-bit versions installed on your machine at the same time. It seems that sometimes this can cause a conflict too. When the other user uninstalled the 64-bit version, everything loaded fine in the 32-bit application.
There' haven't been any major changes to the OSC components. I did add a couple of features mainly to parse up some of the messages sent from other applications... notably from GyrOSC (http://www.grasshopper3d.com/video/gyrosc-kangaroo). Some of the messages are sent as lists of 4 values (like the quaternions sent in that app) or lists of 9 values (like the matrices sent using that app). Anyway, other than adding datatype parsers for these, I didn't change anything else about the component... so it should work as before. Let me know if you're still having trouble.
Cheers,
Andy …
can work in any node of a given hierarchy tree (loaded in your work session) by making the node "active". "Nodes" can be other things as well (like workplane, clip definitions etc).
Why to do that weird thing? Well, think any design being "flat" > meaning that all objects are placed in a single file (and in a single layer). Not that good > although the items are present you barely can handle them (because power is nothing without control, he he).
Let's go one step further: we can start classifying objects in "groups" (like a directories/files organization in any O/S). This means, in MCAD speak, creating assemblies (a void thing kinda like a directory) that contain components/entities (kinda like files).
Several steps further we end up with severely nested "arrangements" of entities (an assembly could be parent of something and child of something else).
For instance, it could be rather obvious the logical classification of a "geodetic" (so to speak) structure like this : a 40000m2 "hangar" defining some thematic park.
I mean : a void master that owns 4 equal void segment sets that own 4 "legs" that own various geodesic structural members + cables + membranes + you name it etc etc.
Each "leg" owns the concrete base (Shared) and a rather complex set of objects.
Notice that some tensile membrane "fixture" combos (see above)...act as perimeter light fixtures as well...meaning that the membrane tension plate may could be a child of a void "light" parent...or may could be a "stand alone" assembly etc etc.
These arrangements can be internal (belonging in, say, a x node within the current active file) or external (belonging in a y node within another file). If they deal with the same (topologically speaking) object they define clusters of Shared entities (or variations)- where only the view transformation matrix changes (in the simple scenario, he he). For instance the disk shown above is a Shared Assembly that owns the bolts, the plates, the tension member etc etc. Selective Instancing allows modifying some attributes without affecting the topology (i.e. the geometry).
The whole (terrible) mess is controlled by some tree like "dialog" (in Catia is "transparent") that is called Structure Browser. By controlled I mean (1) display/display mode with regard any tree member combo/selection set (assembly and/or component) in any View (2) clip state control (3) active status (for modifications/variations) (4) workplane control (5) drag and drop ownership control (6) ....
Now...what if I would chan…
some weird engine, you know, he he) IS NOT like designing plain vanilla AEC things.
Therefore features/calculation methods/capabilities as found in MCAD apps (considered off topic by many in our trade) are mandatory for certain types of designs.
Anyway and if we forget FEA stuff, currently I have 3 C# goals:
(1) master the art of controlling the placement of existed blocks in GH defined topology(done),
(2) master the art of baking blocks(done) and
(3) master the art of baking heavily nested blocks that NX/Catia can understand (progress is slow).
…
hy? because instead of doing N*2 "cones", N balls and N rodes ... you should use instance definitions (blocks in plain English): ONE cone, ONE ball ... and unfortunately N rods (Rhino is not a feature driven CAD app, sorry). Complexity (and file size) increases "exponentially" if you want to mimic a real MERO system.
Recently a friend of mine send me (for inspection) a "big" canopy type of W MERO truss with 2300 nodes that was 500Mb (baked). After the "magic" treatment it become 1.2Mb (when baked).
Notify if you need such a C# based solution: (a) for solving any truss on any collection of surface Lists AND (b) putting "real" stuff (exact MERO members) on that (but is a "bit" complex).…
this, you'll have no horizontal force at the roller, but you will have it at the pinned support. If you wouldn't, then the structure will be displaced.
Usually, in 2 dimensional structures, if you want to know if an articulated structure is isostatic (as opposed to hyperstatic, which is what you have right now) is to use the following formula:
b+c-2·n=0;
b being the number of bars, c the number of constraints you have and n the number of nodes. In your case: b=19, c=3 (displacements constrained in X, Z at your pinned support and only constrained in Z at your roller support) and n=11, so: 19+3-2·11=0.
I recommend you to download the app SW Truss, as it's very useful to check your results instantly.…