onents (radiation, sunlight-hours and view analysis) which let you study the effect of the orientation of your building and the analysis result. When you come to a question similar to "what is the orientation that the building receives the most/least amount of radiation?" is probably the right time to use this component.
HOW?
I'll try to explain the steps using a simple example. Here is my design geometries. The building in the center is the building to be designed and the rest of the buildings are context. I want to see the effect of orientation on the amount of the radiation on the test building surfaces from the start of Oct. to the end of Feb. for Chicago.
First I need to set up the normal radiation analysis and run it for the building as it is right now. [I'm not going to explain how you can set up this since you can find it in the sample file (Download the sample file from here)]
Now I need to set up the parameters for orientation study using orientationStudyPar component. You can find it under the Extra tab:
At minimum I need to input the divisionAngle, and the totalAngle and set runTheStudy to True. In this case I put 45 for divisionAngle and 180 for the totalAngle which means I want the study to be run for angles 0, 45, 90, 135 and 180.
[Note1: The divisionAngle should be divisible by totalAngle.]
[Note 2: If you don't provide any point for the basePoint, the component will use the center of the geometry as the center of the rotation.]
[Note 3: You can also rotate the context with the geometry! Normally you don't have the chance to change the context to make your design work but if you got lucky the rotateContext input is for you! Set it to True. The default is set to False.]
You're all set for the orientation study, just connect the orientationStudyPar output to OrientationStudyP input in the component and wait for the result!
The component will run the study for all the orientations and preview the latest geometry. To see the result just grab a quick graph and connect it to totalRadiation. As you can see in the graph 135 is the orientation that I receive the maximum radiation. Dang!
If you want to see all the result geometries set bakeIt to True, and the result will be baked under LadyBug> RadaitionStudy>[projectname]> . The layer name starts with a number which is the totalRadiation.
Mostapha…
her people) a tremendous amount of time creating them by hand. Dog Treat was far from perfect, however it was good enough to use almost daily.
Three years is a long time. Since 2016 my Gh knowledge has expanded and I’ve seen how dodgy some of the scripting is. With this in mind I started work on a new build. Many things have been tweaked and some things have been rebuilt from the ground up.
Everything has been designed to be leaner and be a general solution to the problem of creating dog bone corners on geometry for quick, efficient and safe CNC fabrication.
Some of these things are:
Adding prompts about user geometry to make them aware about open curves, varying curve heights and if their geometry had been altered (mostly removing unnecessary points on curves).
Smooth Transfers. If you’re in a rush and need to speed through cutting, smooth transfers mean that a lead in geometry is now created alongside the actual dog bone arc. This means the router bit doesn’t have to come to a minute stop at every corner. This is turned on by default.
Acute Angle Condition If the angle between the two curves adjacent to a dog bone point is acute, previously the dog bone corner was useless. This was because the distance between the end points of the dog bone arc were less than the diameter of the router bit. There are many ways this condition could be addressed. I chose to circumscribe a larger arc based on the original angle between the adjacent curves. While it removes more material from the corner, it minimises tool wear and any potential for material to burn.
Single Curve A single curve can now be input into Dog Treat. It will be output with both internal and external treatments.
I’ll continue to update Dog Treat as the need arises, it’s become somewhat of a hobby now. Maybe one day it will become part of a Plug-in… once I learn to code it though!
Happy Treating!
Hi Everyone,
Here's a tool I've been working on for the past 4 months or so in my free time. It's a dog bone corner generator, however it's a little different to some of the existing ones. It's designed to be used for large amounts of geometry and as such, it avoids using any curve boolean operations that are computationally taxing. You don't have to split your curves up into internal and external lots either, it works it all out so you can be lazy. I've also incorporated Lunch Box's Object Bake Component for a one click operation that bakes geometry back out to Internal and External profile layers.
Let me know how it goes, will update where necessary.
Best,
Darcy
Change Log
06/11/19 - Version 2.0 SECOND DINNER - Rebuild
29/09/17 - Version 1.3 - Now with smooth corners option, True for smooth default/False for original
18/05/17 - Version 1.2 - Now includes variable angle domain input (defaults at 90°) for angled corners
13/11/16 - slight change to enable acceptance of very large interior curves
…
Added by Darcy Zelenko at 8:44pm on November 9, 2016
d the fact that one pipe goes out and one goes in, that the surface normal direction is opposite for the two surfaces? Based on an earlier thread, you should know why by now. The two curves have opposite directions (again!); see the white arrows using Rhino 'Analyze | Direction'?
As before, you can fix that by flipping one curve to match the other. HOWEVER, you connected your curves directly to the 'Divide' components instead of using 'Crv' geometry params - bad form. And as before, you "fixed it" by reversing the list of starting points ('S' input to 'BiArc'). Better like this - 'Crv' params are internalized, no need for Rhino file:
Well, well! That didn't fix the opposite surface normals after all! Trust me, though, using geometry params and being conscious about matching curve directions is "best practice". But I haven't lofted 'BiArc' curves for awhile, it's late and I want to move on. OH! I just noticed that you reversed the 'Z' direction for one half of the 'BiArc' - that explains it:
Moving on... You've basically got it, though I would do it differently - same result, like this:
I haven't really explained surface normal vectors - can you figure it out from here? One more little wrinkle (Normal_2017Mar17b.gh):
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 12:03am on March 18, 2017
ported to Rhino and "set" in Grasshopper, i trim both surfaces from their rectangular bases so that when sDivide is used it creates and distributes the same number of points on each surface.But heres the problems: a) if i use the "trimmed" surfaces with SrfGrid it errors warning: "A point in the grid is null. fitting operation aborted".I'd learned this was caused by "nulls" replacing position Data Items when the rectangular grid(surface base) was trimmed away. So i used Clean Tree which worked removing all nulls, then Shift Paths\Flip Matrix to create line-endpoint pairs for Polyline\Evaluate Curve. I Flattened the last Flip Matrix placing all data items in one source for SrfGrid, like in the working Untrim\CopyTrim definition.This time,.b) SrfGrid errored with: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.So, i substituted a 356 value, numeric Slider in the Addition B param., and tested its range until a valid UCount was found. Then SrfGrid fitted a surface thru the points, BUT,d) those SrfGrid surfaces are extremely deformed even thought the points preceding it from Evaluate Curve are accurate,SEE: def: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",AND,.a2) if i use Untrim with CopyTrim then SrfGrid works, but since the Jokers limbs WILL be in different surface positions then the blends between the Arm (for example) will rise from its relative FLAT position on the untrimmed Source surface to the Arm on the Target surface, rather than morphing from the Corresponding Arm position on the Source surface,. ..see def.: "4-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh"So please let me know,..1) how to produce accurate surfaces from SrfGrid in def.: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",. ..(NOTE: BOTH these def's contain 2 indentical, "internalized" surfaces, but if def. 3b can be made to work it will also work with Dis-similar surfaces)2) which component to use or how else to determine the correct UCount value for a specified amount of points(ie:155), re: SrfGrid error: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.3) how else to force SrfGrid to work with Trimmed surfaces?, AND,..4) how to force intersurface, point-blend correspondence lines: Polylines(PLine) to be connected between correctly! correponding positions (Limbs) on the surfaces?,
Really! appreciate all help, definitions and kind generosity common to this knowledgable membership,
Cheers!,
Jeff…
Introduction to Grasshopper Videos by David Rutten.
Wondering how to get started with Grasshopper? Look no further. Spend an some time with the creator of Grasshopper, David Rutten, to learn the
y case. Here's the thing. There is this subject at my university where we are assigned a famous building and we need to recreate it in Rhino. We're given bonus points if we manage to code some interesting part of it in Grasshopper. So far so good, I'm doing pretty well with Rhino and by far I am happy with the results I've achieved with modelling the given building. Harbin Opera House by MAD is the building I'm trying to model. There is one particular surface:I've built this surface in Rhino and now I'm trying to map pyramids on it. Not only have the pyramids to be different in height, but their height has to be dependent on the curvature of the surface. I'm getting some results but it seems to be exactly the opposite of what I need. I want to have higher/spikier pyramids where my curvature analysis shows red/blue and lower/slopier pyramids where the analysis shows green colour.At the moment I'm not really sure how the code I have works, but it seems that the height of the pyramids is dependent on a distance from a point in space to the projection of the cap-point of a pyramid.Here're my Rhino and Grasshopper files:surface1.3dm
surface1.ghI'd be grateful if someone of you guys could handle my problem. I've got one more issue with this surface, but once I get a solution to the first 1 will let know what the second one is.Thanks in advance and keep well!…
are invisible in the picture.
So what you see it's a common band that has lost all those characteristics of the original in order to protect the process.
We also did an "invisible setting" prototype which has built in Flexibility.
If you are in the jewelry industry you would know what I mean and it is close to a miracle.
It's a shame I can not share details and this is why I am planning my next major work on something 10 times more complex then this, at least.
It's will be for my own business and for the jewelry industry as well.
I hate to tease people and then not to be able to produce anything more than an image.
But I thought it would be better than nothing, at least for jeweler designers, so they can see that there are more and more users and that complexity it is not something to shy away from, and it's worth the time spent because the returns on production are far larger than for special orders and this is why GH is useful.
We can design a piece of jewelry usually in less then 1 hour, hence GH is not really worth the time.
But for production with so many variables (Finger sizes controlling most of the outcome together with stone sizes etc.) then GH it's a MUST!
I really appreciate everyone's comments and suspicions and I understand why.
99% of the people out there do not really understand the complexity of jewelry at the industrial level. It' s not just form but the post-production that's the killer.
This industry it's still an hybrid of technology and art with, and due to the lack of the old school pros, unfortunately, we face very lousy and unpredictable execution in the post production (after the casting process). This leaves you with a design process and intention that requires a lot of control over every possible variant of the object.
One wrong design aspect it's multiplied thousands of times at the benches (for every single piece) = bad profits!
It sound more serious that it is but very few companies are willing to do so (delivering good product vs low quality and this also happens because the consumer is not longer aware of the difference. So, who does keep quality, it's only because of integrity, third party QA or just pride).
This is way GH is invaluable. This is why that Def looks like out of proportion for that (Visual) simple band.
It is because there are dozens and dozens of variable effecting everything else. In fact it is not even complete as it is in order to cover everything but the most critical ones.
Sorry for the long replays. I am an instructor and a professional jeweler by trade since I was very young and I love to teach, so I overflow with explanations... and Components :)).
Next time it will be "in the open" as they say...…
uments:
1. You are targeting CATIA don't you? (not exactly tomorrow but ... soon) and/or SolidWorks (hello C# haven't we met before?).
2. You MUST deal with nested block instances instead of what you are trying to do right now (I'm talking about the real MERO things not abstract Lines and points). This is not doable with GH components I'm afraid (but it's rather easy with code).
3. You MUST deal with RDBMS in order to keep track with what's going on in your company per project per case per designer (who sells that bolt? what's his cat name? is he a reliable supplier? what I'm doing in life? ... that sort of "queries"). At this point: CATIA is 1% CAD things and 99% PLM stuff (Product Life cycle Management). We do want that since it's 21st century running don't we?.
I hear you: but these are 3 arguments ... indeed but ... hey who's counting? he he.
Method:
A. This def attached has a very simple C# that gets mesh Pts and makes a nice U/V style collection of points (DataTree in plain English).
B. Then we go to that umbrella sticks thingy: we can calculate anything (already the thing does "some") plus your collections of divided points (with the right way, he he) VS a given node: you said (Skype) that you want to calculate angles with these (from 2 to 6) in mind: obvious since you are doing real-life MERO things.
C. Then we could calculate the appropriate Planes for PlaneToPlane transformations: get a nested instance definition (the red things that you've showed to me yesterday) placed at 0,0,0 (Plane.WorldXY) and put in in every Plane collection related with every node (clash defection is an obvious must).
Case resolved, closed: what about that Vodka?
More in Skype
…
merely automates finding clear intersections between pairs of objects and then splits the objects along those intersection *curves*, deletes the trims, then joins the remains, and cycles on. But within the confusing Rhino Settings tolerance value, wherever surfaces actually just sort of come closely together, there *is* *no* clear intersection curve. So it bugs out and stops working EVERY time you try more than a dozen or two spheres.
Some software can do this by switching to volumetric pixels (voxels). $9K-$30K Geomagic Freeform is an example of this. It also fails sometimes, often due to memory issues, as you can imagine since it needs to fill all inner space of each sphere definition with 3D pixels.
Materialize Magics for $16K can often handle such Booleans well. It will take a seeming lifetime to figure out such often pirate software kludges though.
One thing you can try though is to simply drape a mesh or NURBS plane onto the top of your spheres.
There's a well known *reason* your Booleans are failing. Nobody here has yet even hinted at it:
The main reason is that Rhino/Grasshopper developers don't care about the human element. The math exists to make this work very fast, every time. It just has to join things *right*, incorporating human knowledge of kissing surfaces, instead of acting stupidly, like some pocket calculator. But that would involve hacks that make 99% of complex Booleans work instead of 10%, and we can't have that since it will be SLOWER for the other 1% that just happen to have no nearly kissing or really kissing surfaces.
You could also use the new Cocoon plugin to do a surface *around* your structures, with a given radius of extension beyond the spheres, then offset that surface back the same radius. That is 100% robust, but won't offer quite as sharp of intersections, more rounded, like most everybody wants anyway.
You can *test* Boolean failures, by running a Grasshopper intersection command, to see the intersection curves, and zoom in to see how badly many of them are, all knotted, or twisted, or even with gaps, often with gaps.
It's a math problem nobody at McNeel wants to solve, sorry.
Just write a check for $25K and spend six months taking notes, like I did, and you can merge your simple spheres finally.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:33pm on October 20, 2015