and perpframes
3) Ellipse on perframes
4) Series + Move + Series + Scale + Series + rotate (to create generations)
5) Divide curve (ellipse) + Dispatch only seleced points + join those points on ellipse using Intercurve + Divide the resulting intercurve
6) List items (I used list items 4 times, you could do as many). For 'i' parameter in list item i used slider to create generations. depending upon your definition, at this stage you might have to flatten your list output
7) joint the points you get from list output to form another intercurve + repeat that for all items.
8) Loft the curve
9) to form fenestrations, i again used rhino closed curves.
8) Project curve onto surface + copy trim + surface to mesh + mesh thickening from WB.
Hope this helps
Cheers
aB
…
his project. Attached is my latest script. It seems to work for all points & directions of gravity except when the points are at equal height (in the reference plane the script creates, not in the world space). In other words, when the vector from A to B is perpendicular to the gravity vector, it doesn't work. It's totally due to the formulas used to solve for distance (see script), but I haven't found a way to fix it to make it work. Kudos to anyone that can help me figure it out!
Other notes: Required input: Point A, Point B, Gravity vector, and desired Height and/or desired chain/arch Length. Cool trick: when inputting both Height and Length, it recalculates the end point (point B) with those desired parameters, and the end point lies along the AB vector. Also, the "x" output shows either the found height, length, or distance (when both height & length are input), and "newPl" just shows the reference plane used to make calculations easier.
Cheers…
Added by Will McElwain at 11:52pm on January 18, 2014
med that a 1000 lux measurement for a particular hour on a workplane grid point will indicate a illuminance from direct sun at that point. If I remember correctly, these simulations are to be run without the presence of any shading devices.
From an ASE calculation perspective, there are several shortcomings within Daysim (as it exists right now). The daylight coefficient method, which Daysim employs, calculates illuminance by dividing the sky into discrete patches. (http://naturalfrequency.com/wiki/sky-subdivision) For a clear sky with sun, the luminance from sun is accounted for by approximating the position of sun into 3 (as far as I know) patches. That in turn leads to an incorrect estimation of both position and luminance contribution of the sun.
Anyways, as I wrote in the begining, in my opinion the closest you'd get to calculating ASE from daysim right now would be running an annual daylighting calculation with Honeybee by setting ambient bounces as zero. A better approach, in case you are not trying to comply with something like leed v4, would be to do a DGP analysis as Chris mentioned in his post.
…
i projected my surface on XY plane, created voronoi curves on the planar surface and re-project / map the curves onto the subject model.
However, i'm not getting a desired result.
can any-1 please help me. or even show me a different way to model it via GH? I donot want to use rhino objects.
I have attached my initial sketch, GH and Rhino files.
Hope to find some solution so I could move forward :-(
Moreover, I could not convert the initial non-planar curves into surface hence I converted them into Mesh (thanks to 'Brian Harms' for helping me out). However, the protruding edges of the mesh is not a smooth NURB curve, it forms kind of vertices of a polygon. Any way to smoothen / fillet it? Will it affect when i commence 3D printing?
Regards,
aB…
/ interest to some of you. I'm attempting to generate "bricks" along an arc, the span of the arc is known (Line AB), as is the desired brick edge length (shown as chords on the dotted circle). Im am essentially trying to solve for the diameter of the dotted circle and its center point (C). The variables within the grasshopper script would be span (X), chord Length (Y) and number of segments to the arch (N). Lacking the radius or central angle means that Im unable to solve this using my limited knowledge of Trig.
I guess the key issue here is that chord length and number is driving the radius of the arc / circle. Hence why Im not simply using the divide curve tool.
Any input members might have would be fantastic and I'd be very happy to share the resulting file.
Thank you!
…
Added by Robert Harvey at 11:24am on November 20, 2012
join site boundary curves with voronoi curves so that voronoi curves at the edges becomes a closed polygon?
2)I want to create a line between voronoi curve control points and voronoi cell centroid points, such that each 2D voronoi cell is broken down into a sets of triangles. Please refer attached sketch.
3) Then How do i project voronoi curves along with triangl curves onto a vaulted roof?.
4) lastly, i want to give some thickness to those curve. i.e. the curves basically are structural beams of the roof. with my definition pipe command does not work very well i.e. pipes intersect and crossover at each vertices, which is not my intention.
attached is a sketch and my definition.
Can any1 help me with any of the 4 problems?
Thank you very much
AB…
g a problem though when trying to set a daylight simulation with some determined radiance parameters. Here's the problem: After many tries I think I found out that setting -ab = 6 and at the same time -aa = .05 creates some sort of problem, because when I try to do so My PC blocks for several minutes, without letting me manually end processes from taskmanager, and when I'm able again to enter grasshopper, i get the following error:
"Solution exception:index out of range: 0"
Does this really depends on the parameters and values I found out or is it related to something else? Is the problem relative to the structure of HoneyBee or is it just relative to my specific case (and maybe PC)? Is it possible to solve it, and if yes, how?
Atteched you find my rhino model and my grasshopper file.
Thanks in advance for your help and again many compliments!
Luigi…
bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Matrix transforms and persistent constraints: I don't think this is true. The parts can have mates to other parts that preserve geometric relationships like 'coincident' , 'aligned' etc. These are essentially bi-directional. GH's algorithmic approach does not do relationships in the same / flexible way. In GH, the 'relationship' has to be part of the generation method that dependent on the creation sequence. I.e. draw line 2 perpendicularly from the end of point of line 1. If you are thinking about parts or assemblies sharing, or referencing parameters as part of the regen process, this is also possible. iLogic does this, and adds scripting. So does Catia. Inventor/iLogic can also access Excel and have all the parameter processing done centrally, if required.
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.
I wouldn't be too hasty here. Yes, you are right about compartmentalisation. I think this needs to happen with GH, in order to deal with scalability/everyday interoperability requirements. Confining projects to one script is not sustainable. MCAD apps have been doing this for ages with 'Relational Modeling'.The Adaptive Components placement example illustrates that it is beneficial to be able to script some 'hints' that can be used on placement of the component. Say, if your component requires points as inputs, then its should be able to find the nearest points to the cursor as it moves around. I think Aish's D# / DesignScript demo'd this kind of behaviour a few years ago. Similarly, Modo Toolpipe reminds me how a lot of UI based transactions can be captured as scripts (macro recorder etc). Allowing this input to be mixed in and/or extended by GH I think will yield a lot of 'modeling efficiency' around the edges. This is a (mis)using GH as an user-programmable 'jig' for placing/manipulating 'dumb' elements in Rhino. It may even give the 'dumb elements' a bit more 'intelligence' by leaving behind embedded attributes, like links to particular construction planes etc.Even if we confine ourselves to scripting. GH is a visual or graphic programming interface. A lot of 'insert and connect' tasks can be done more easily using graphic methods. If we need to select certain vertices on a mesh as inputs for, say, a facade panel, its going to be quicker to do this 'graphically' (like the AC example), then ferreting out the relevant indices in the data tree et al. The 'facade panel' script would then have some coding to filter/prompt the user as to what inputs were acceptable, and so on.
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.
Not sure what you mean here. If the i-parts are built up using sketches /profiles or other more rudimentary features (like Revits' profile/face etc family templates) then reuse should be fairly straight forward. I suppose you could make it like GH scripting, if you cut and paste or include script snippets that generate the desired Inventor features.
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.
I don't think this is true. Look at the automotive body design apps, which are mostly Catia based. All of the body parts are pretty much 'generative' and generated from splines, in a procedural way, using very similar approaches to GH. Or sheet metal design. It's not always about configuration of off-the-shelf items like bolts. And, the constraints manager is available to arbitrate which bit of script fires first, and your mundane workaday associative dimensions etc can update without getting run over by the DAG(s) :-)
…
ino Mc Neel, autore di "Architettura Parametrica - 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. INFO E PRENOTAZIONI: http://www.arturotedeschi.com/wordpress/?p=2888…
n account of the position of the sun and weather cannot be expressed in terms of a single set of luminous intensity values (which is what IES files do).
With regards to your example files, I agree with Chris. The primary reason for the low illuminance levels is that the light bounces are getting lost in the tube. Have you checked with the manufacturer/distributor if the location of the IES file should be inside the tube and not flush with the ceiling? Physically modelling such tubes in lighting software like Radiance (which is what HB uses) or AGI32 is a fairly expensive proposition. This is one of the reasons why manufacturers provide photometric data for such devices (however simplistic that data might be).
The candelamultiplier increases or decreases the luminous intensity values. So it will have a direct impact on the calculation. The primary reason for having that input was to enable users to do some testing with different lamp types and environmental factors such as dirt depreciation. You need not change them for your simulation. Assuming that the IES file is inside the tube, in order to make this calculation work inside HB you'd have to crank up the calculation settings to a very high level (start with -ab 10 -ad 4096).
Finally, due to shortcomings in the annual simulation software (Daysim), IES files will not work directly work with annual calculations. However, there is a fairly easy workaround for that issue. In case you are planning to run annual calculations with IES files, please let us know here.
Sarith…