et us consider a plane somewhere in space, 10 units along each side, and it has UV domains 0-1 in both directions. It's a perfect square surface basically.
This surface only really 'exists' on the inside of the UV domains. You can evaluate the surface at {0,0}, which will give you the lower left corner, you can evaluate it at {1,1}, which will give you the upper right corner or you can evaluate it at {0.5, 0.5} which might give you the point in the middle. If you evaluate it at {2,-5}, you will get a point that is beyond the surface edge.
This surface 'space' is strictly two-dimensional and it is also bounded, meaning it has a finite region in which things can be said to exist. If we attach a point to this surface at UV coordinates {0.5, 0.5}, then move the surface about, the point will move with the surface. So it's XYZ coordinates will change, but the UV coordinates are still {0.5, 0.5}! These are just two ways of looking at the same point. Either we treat the point as a coordinate in infinite 3D euclidean space {x,y,z} or we treat it as anchored to a surface {u,v}. Going from XYZ to UV is usually called "Projecting" or "Pulling", going from UV to XYZ is usually called "Evaluating" or "Sampling", but they are mathematically very similar processes.
Evan mentioned that Voronoi only works in the flat 2D plane. He suggested remapping the points from the surface onto the World XY plane, then solving the Voronoi diagram, then mapping the result back onto the surface again.
Basically that means projecting all your XYZ points to surface UV space. That will give you a collection of points defined strictly by 2 coordinates, i.e. it is completely flat. You solve the Voronoi diagram on these flat points, and then you have to put the flat points (and the flat voronoi cell outlines) back onto the surface.
Have a look at the [Surface CP] and [Evaluate Surface] components, they provide the methods required to map coordinates from XYZ space to UV space and vice versa.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:51pm on April 29, 2010
the Options. For example, if we look at the default settings in this order:
Population: Number of iterations / generation 50 - Galapagos tries 50 slider positions each generation. When it finishes 50, it looks at the results and takes from the best results based on your fitness.
Initial Boost: Factor for the first generation 2. You want to ensure Galapagos sees as much of the solution space as possible in order to not miss any potential solutions. The first generation is multiplied by this factor. If Population is 50, the first generation will be 50x2 = 100 slider positions.
Maintain and Inbreeding deal with what you keep between Generations.
Max Stagnant: Number of generations to try AFTER finding a better solution 50. If Galapagos finds a great solution in Generation 2 (Gen 0 = 100 tries, Gen 1 = 50 tries, Gen 2 = 50 tries) it will go another 50 Generations (50x50 tries) before it stops to ensure it did not miss anything.
Your solution space consists of 11 options, which is much less than any of the other parameters are suggesting. Galapagos flails wildly in your case because you told it to. You told it to try 50x50(+50 for initial boost) number of times to find the best value.
Hence why I do not think this is the best option. You said it, this is not an optimization problem. If it is not an optimization problem, why use a genetic algorithm solver which is predominantly used for optimizing parameters?
I wouldn't necessarily want to see the definition, I'm more curious about the data. For example, can you send the data for 10 structural members and some load cases? (again, I could be entirely oversimplifying it).
In any case, I changed Max. Stagnant to 5, Population to 11. So Galapagos will stop (5x11)+11 tries AFTER the best solution is found. It found the solution pretty quickly.…
Added by Luis Fraguada at 6:07am on September 7, 2016
) Course Fee: Professional EUR 825,- (+VAT), Student EUR 415,- (+VAT)
Led by plug-in developer and structural engineer Clemens Preisinger, along with Zeynep Aksoz and Matthew Tam from the expert Karamba3D team, this three-day workshop will focus on methods of setting up structural systems in the parametric environment of Grasshopper. The participants will be guided through the basics of analyzing and interpreting structural models, to optimization processes, and how to integrate Karamba3D into C# scripts.
This workshop is aimed towards beginner to intermediate users of Karamba3D. However, advanced users are also encouraged to apply. It is open to both professional and academic users. For beginner users of Rhino and Grasshopper, there will be an optional introductory course one day before the Karamba3D course.
Karamba3D 1is a parametric structural engineering tool which provides accurate analysis of spatial trusses, frames, and shells. Karamba3D is fully embedded in the parametric design environment of Grasshopper, a plug-in for the 3D modeling tool Rhinoceros. This makes it easy to combine parameterized geometric models, finite element calculations, and optimization algorithms like Galapagos.
Course Outline
Introduction and presentation of project examples
Optimization of cross sections of line-based and surface-based elements
Geometric optimization
Topological optimization
Structural performance informed form finding
Understanding analysis algorithms embedded in Karamba3D and visualizing results
Complex workflow processes in Rhino, Grasshopper, and Karamba3D
Places are limited to a maximum of 10 participants with limited educational places. A minimum of 4 participants is required for the workshop to take place. The workshop will be canceled if this quota is not filled by October 28. The workshop will be taught in English.
Course Requirements
Basic Rhino and Grasshopper knowledge is recommended. An introductory course is offered.
No knowledge of Karamba3D is needed. Participants should bring their own laptops with Grasshopper and either Rhino 5 or Rhino 6 installed. You can download a 90-day trial version of Rhino. Karamba3D ½ year licenses for non-commercial use will be provided to all participants.
Please register here……
Added by Matthew Tam at 6:38am on September 13, 2019
inner As Curve() = section.ToNurbsCurve().Offset(normal, pc, -plate, 1e-3, 1e-4, Rhino.Geometry.CurveOffsetCornerStyle.Sharp)
the error message is:
"
{0}0. Error: Het oplossen van de overbelasting is mislukt omdat dit aantal argumenten door geen enkele toegankelijke Offset wordt geaccepteerd. (line 104)
"
this is the VBA script:
"Option Strict OffOption Explicit On'Import SDK and Framework namespacesImports RhinoImports Rhino.GeometryImports Rhino.CollectionsImports GrasshopperImports Grasshopper.KernelImports Grasshopper.Kernel.DataImports Grasshopper.Kernel.TypesImports GH_IOImports GH_IO.SerializationImports SystemImports System.IOImports System.XmlImports System.DataImports System.DrawingImports System.ReflectionImports System.CollectionsImports System.Windows.FormsImports Microsoft.VisualBasicImports System.Collections.GenericImports System.Runtime.InteropServices'Code generated by Grasshopper(R) (except for RunScript() content and Additional content)'Copyright (C) 2011 - Robert McNeel & Associates<System.Runtime.CompilerServices.CompilerGenerated()> _Public Class Script_Instance Implements IGH_ScriptInstance#Region "Members" ''' <summary>List of error messages. Do not modify this list directly.</summary> Private __err As New List(Of String) ''' <summary>List of print messages. Do not modify this list directly, use the Print() and Reflect() functions instead.</summary> Private __out As New List(Of String) ''' <summary>Represents the current Rhino document.</summary> Private doc As RhinoDoc = RhinoDoc.ActiveDoc ''' <summary>Represents the Script component which maintains this script.</summary> Public owner As Grasshopper.Kernel.IGH_ActiveObject#End Region#Region "Utility functions" ''' <summary>Print a String to the [Out] Parameter of the Script component.</summary> ''' <param name="text">String to print.</param> Private Sub Print(ByVal text As String) __out.Add(text) End Sub ''' <summary>Print a formatted String to the [Out] Parameter of the Script component.</summary> ''' <param name="format">String format.</param> ''' <param name="args">Formatting parameters.</param> Private Sub Print(ByVal format As String, ByVal ParamArray args As Object()) __out.Add(String.Format(format, args)) End Sub ''' <summary>Print useful information about an object instance to the [Out] Parameter of the Script component. </summary> ''' <param name="obj">Object instance to parse.</param> Private Sub Reflect(ByVal obj As Object) __out.Add(GH_ScriptComponentUtilities.ReflectType_VB(obj)) End Sub ''' <summary>Print the signatures of all the overloads of a specific method to the [Out] Parameter of the Script component. </summary> ''' <param name="obj">Object instance to parse.</param> Private Sub Reflect(ByVal obj As Object, ByVal method_name As String) __out.Add(GH_ScriptComponentUtilities.ReflectType_VB(obj, method_name)) End Sub#End Region ''' <summary> ''' This procedure contains the user code. Input parameters are provided as ByVal arguments, ''' Output parameter are ByRef arguments. You don't have to assign output parameters, ''' they will be null by default. ''' </summary> Private Sub RunScript(ByVal p0 As Point3d, ByVal p1 As Point3d, ByVal p2 As Point3d, ByVal pc As Point3d, ByVal plate As Double, ByVal itt As Integer, ByVal dev As Double, ByRef crvout As Object, ByRef crvin As Object, ByRef sec As Object, ByRef opp As Object, ByRef div As Object, ByRef pt4 As Object) 'your code goes here… opp = "test01" Dim section As New Polyline(5) section.Add(p0) section.Add(p1) section.Add(p2) section.Add(pc) section.Add(p0) Dim normal As Vector3d = vector3d.CrossProduct((p1 - p0), (p2 - p0)) Dim area As Double Dim chicken_int As Int32 = 0 Dim XX As Double Dim YY As Double Do chicken_int += 1 If (chicken_int > itt) Then Exit Do 'Compute the section offset Dim inner As Curve() = section.ToNurbsCurve().Offset(normal, pc, -plate, 1e-3, 1e-4, Rhino.Geometry.CurveOffsetCornerStyle.Sharp) Dim edges As New CurveList(inner) edges.Add(section.ToNurbsCurve()) crvin = edges Dim sections As Brep() = Brep.CreatePlanarBreps(edges) If (sections Is Nothing) Then Exit Do opp = "test02" 'Compute the centroid of the current section Dim am As AreaMassProperties = AreaMassProperties.Compute(sections(0)) Dim ct As Point3d = am.Centroid XX = am.CentroidCoordinatesMomentsOfInertia.X YY = am.CentroidCoordinatesMomentsOfInertia.Y area = am.Area Dim dx As Vector3d = pc - ct 'Compute the error of the current centroid Dim dl As Double = dx.Length div = dl 'Update output values crvout = section crvin = inner sec = sections(0) opp = area If (dl < dev) Then Exit Do 'Adjust outline with a boosting factor. section(3) += dx * 4 Loop pt4 = section(3) crvout = section End Sub '<Custom additional code> '</Custom additional code> End Class
"…
u can still find some wonky behaviour in GH related to datatrees. My experience is that new users quite quickly get the hang of it once they learn that a tree is in fact not a tree but in the first place set of lists, where the path shows how the pieces of data used to be grouped.
Branch Count checking A component has multiple tree inputs, but has different amount of branches, each having branch count > 2. (While I understand the logic of combining multiple trees, I've not once encounted once that combining a component with e.g. an input of 2 branches and an input of 4 branches to give any kind of sensible output.
Desired behaviour: If a component has branches (each being > 2 path count), the component should throw a warning. ("Strict branches behaviour?). For example: take an offset component, with 6 branches of curves and 5 branches of offsets. It is extremely likely that this is the result of an error earlier in the definition. This works however without a problem - the last branch is repeated again, and it's later on quite hard to discover something went wrong.
Checking branch Count The most important numeric is the amount of branches, and the amount of items in the tree. It's desired that the hovers show the amount of data and the amount of branches.
Desired behaviour
Trees with paths of different rank Trees that contain {0;0} and {0} and {0;0;1} is usually a sign of trouble of not well merged trees, faulty C# components, or just nasty coding habits.
Trim as undo graft instead of flatten Having the trim in the context menu would provide an easy way to undo a graft. Right now the easiest way for many people is to flatten it, and then start all over again - while just getting rid of the last index keeps the underlying history and makes it easier to write reuseable pieces of code when you prepend datatrees to it.
Component to get branch by index, not by path Would be great. Suppose you have a grid of points, grouped by row. It would help to show: "look, this is in the first path, it's called {0;0;1}, it's got 10 points, these points are the first row".
Analogue to using list item to show what is the first point, second point, and so on.
Semantic path names (maybe far fetched) But what if we can add a short name of each method that was executed to the path list, so it can show:
{Slider 0; Series 0; Point 0}{Slider 0; Series 0; Point 1}
{Slider 0; Series 0; Point 2}
{Slider 0; Series 0; Point 3}
{Slider 0; Series 1; Point 0}
{Slider 0; Series 1; Point 1}
{Slider 0; Series 1; Point 2}
{Slider 0; Series 1; Point 3}
Make the input/data matching inside components explicit Can we make it even more obvious that a component is not a black box that's executed once, but in fact an iteration machine that tries to make sense of the inputs that's fed to this box?
Show data combination. How data input A relates to data input B and data input C, is currently very implict and is just plain hard to learn., and required the ability to be able to relate the output back to the input. If we can textually or even graphically show what data matching occured inside a component, it would greatly help the understanding (and debugging) of "what's going on here in this component"
A verbose explanation of the data matching in component A
Iteration one: - Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0) - Motion: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Vector 0,0,0)
Iteration two:
- Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0)
- Motion: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 1: (Vector 10,0,0)
Iteration three:
- Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0)
- Motion: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 1: (Vector 20,0,0)
etc.
A verbose explanation of the data matching in component B
Iteration one: - Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0) - Motion: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Vector 0,0,0)
..
Iteration seven:
- Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0)
- Motion: We take the data item from Branch 7, Position 0: (Vector 0,70,0)
..
Iteration 27:
- Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 7: (Point 80,0,0)
- Motion: We take the data item from Branch 2, Position 0: (Vector 0,20,0)
…
diseño, construcción y entendimiento de nuestro entorno.
BIM está poniendo a disposición de los diseñadores y gestores auténticas bases de datos que pueden generarse, conectarse y editarse de forma paramétrica, proporcionando una sólida capa de realidad a los ejercicios de diseño generativo y computación que son objeto de estudio en Algomad, el seminario que busca popularizar la programación y la parametrización en el diseño y en la experiencia de nuestro entorno construido.
Tras un paréntesis en 2015, Algomad vuelve con el objetivo de demostrar cómo una visión computacional del BIM es una oportunidad para mejorar la forma de trabajar de ingenieros, arquitectos, constructoras y operadores de edificios e infraestructuras, tendiendo un puente entre las técnicas de diseño digital más avanzadas y la realidad de la construcción.
Algomad 2016 tendrá lugar en el centro de Madrid, en IE School of Architecture and Design, IE University, los días 3, 4 y 5 de Noviembre de 2016 y comprenderá 4 talleres así como ponencias a cargo de expertos de primer nivel.
Estructura de Algomad 2016
Algomad 2016 se estructura en torno a tres áreas temáticas principales:
BIM, como la metodología total específica para el sector de la construcción.
Computación, englobando las aplicaciones de programación y parametrización al diseño de edificios e infraestructuras.
Realidad, como marco de trabajo, buscando siempre resolver problemas reales a través de los dos puntos anteriores.
Público objetivo
Arquitectos, arquitectos técnicos, ingenieros y en general académicos, estudiantes de últimos cursos y profesionales del mundo inmobiliario y de la construcción que compartan un interés por la digitalización de nuestro sector. Se espera un nivel mínimo en el uso de herramientas BIM y de parametrización. Algomad proporcionará formación adicional y gratuita en las herramientas básicas a emplear en los talleres para asegurar un correcto desempeño.…
itects are at the spoke of a number of different specialties, and their work affects many different people. It's not like an architect is a painter, whose work may offend or upset the occasional viewer. As an architect you have a responsibility to produce quality work. How can anybody trust you with this responsibility if you're taking a purely artistic approach? What guarantees do you have that your clients money won't be spend on a poorly designed project if you can provide no rational for why your design is the way it is?
2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?
I don't get. Discourse is there to flesh out problems and agree on solutions. It might not always accomplish that, but what's the difference between talking about architecture as opposed to any other topic?
3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?
I'm sorry I don't understand.
4. What is purely architectural discourse?
I imagine it's having a discussion where you only talk about architecture?
5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support?
Functionalism and Rationalism are ideologies. Some would even call them methodologies. They are inherently philosophical things as they are nothing more than a collection of ideas and views. As a society we've decided that a certain level of rationalism is a good thing. The Enlightenment continued this trend after the Dark Age hiatus and it quickly led to a large number of very tangible benefits for almost everyone.
I'm not arguing for or against Functionalism as an architectural style. I'm asking for a measure of rationalism in our academic process.
6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ?
Let's find out. In the meantime I'll settle for a little functionalism.
7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?
Algorithms and algorithmic design are rational in the sense that they do not allow for ambiguity. But that doesn't make them rational in the real-world sense. These are not the same kind of 'rational's. I can make an algorithm that produces total nonsense, but does so completely reliably. I can also use an algorithm in a setting for which it wasn't intended, thus invalidating the results.
This is actually the crux of the problem. Which algorithms does one use to solve a problem and what data do they require? If you can't answer this question or if you do not understand the algorithms you are using (at least on a superficial level) then I'd say you have no business using them.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 12:48pm on August 19, 2013
an almost planar tissue (your case) can cause a variety of issues up to the undo able state (metal parts/components grow in size as well for no reason). See forces estimated by FF below.
2. Therefor I strongly suggest to consider Plan B (a) mastermind a secondary "anchor" capability in order to achieve a far more stable system (b) use a mount design that can support this (and comply with the attractor concept of yours). Here's a variable mount custom system (mostly machined AND not cast) that is suitable for the scope (Rhino reads the stp file OK .... but makes a colossally big file - thus I attach here the original).
3. On first sight lot's of things in this system appear "odd". For instance: is it stable? Why these double cables are used? How far can be adjusted? (that's a classic case for feature driven parametric design - not doable with Rhino).
4. This concept (strut axis exported only) is tested in FORMFINDER and some other far more complex membrane apps that I use quite often (not RhinoMembrane). Here's is what FF tells us about:
Observe a different kind of "stress" when this is converted to radial type:
5. If you insert the stp file to the Rhino file provided (exactly as exported from FORMFINDER - no mods of mine of any kind) you'll see what goes where (and why). That way the usage of double cables is rather obvious (and a lot other things - for instance the way that the struts achieve "equilibrium", see the slots in the base mount plate.
6. If this approach is worth considering your definition requires some serious rethinking (far more simpler/manageable with the drawback that the real parts they are "static" they can adjust only as far this particular solution allows them to do - controlling them parametrically is clearly impossible with the current state of R/GH capabilities).`
All in all: this case works because the cables push the anchor points downwards and the struts push them upwards.
more in a while
…
reaky thing consisting from triangulated "modules" (i.e an assembly out of this, this and that) where the exterior edges ARE always under tension (= SS 304/316 cables OR nylon) and the interior ones MAY be under compression ( = steel, aluminum, wood, carbon) OR ... some of them ...may be under tension. Bastardized T trusses deviate a bit from theory ... but who cares? (not me anyway). T trusses have many variants (but as the greatest ever said: Less is More).
2. Large scale T for AEC is the art of pointless since it costs around the GNP of Nigeria. Here's some indicative components from a module of a multi adjustable TX system costing (the module) ~ the price of my Panigale (Google that):
The above is mailed to a friend who has MIT (yes, that MIT: the top dog) on sight ... therefor he needs some appropriate "credentials", he he.
3. The distance that separates the above with the demo TDT node provided is around 666.666 miles - but we don't care: we are after Art not some testimony to vanity.
4. On purpose I've used a smallish ring to give you a clear indication upon the constrain numero uno in truss design: CLASH matters.
5. You'll need:
(a) A decision related with the tensioners (classic Norseman + SS cables or nylon machined thingies?).
(b) A machinist who can do elementary stuff (like the adapters) and can weld this to that (the "ring" for instance). His abilities must be 1 in a scale of 100. If the fella has a computer (not a CRAY) and he knows what 3dPDF is (hmm) ... well ... use that way to communicate with him PRIOR designing anything: He must agree on the parts BEFORE the whole is attempted (as a design in GH or in some other app).
(c) A carpenter with a wood lathe for the obvious. BTW: BEFORE doing any TDT attempt > ask the carpenter about the available wood strut sizes. Against popular belief DO NOT varnish the wood (use exterior alkyd/oil stains from some top maker like the notorious US company PPG).
http://www.ppgpaints.com/products/paints-stains-data-sheets
(d) Good quality cigars (and espresso) plus some classic music (ZZTop, PFloyd, Cure, Stones, U2 etc etc) during the assembly.
(e) Faith to the Dark Side (see my avatar).
May the Force (the dark option) be with you.…