s is like flattening your data PARTIALLY - chopping an index off the end of the branch paths without obliterating the tree entirely. When working with one "set" of input data, a flatten works to get these lists to match up - but when working with multiple sets, we need to be careful to preserve the original branch indices that keep all four of your original regions separate. As a rule, whenever you're feeding two data trees into any component, they should have the same number of branches. (or one should have branches and the other should be a flat list, in other cases).
The rule of thumb I tend to teach is this:
In 90% of cases...
For lists, all your inputs should either have 1 item or N items. That is to say, if you're feeding 4 items into one input and 9 items into another, something is probably wrong.
For trees, all your inputs should have either 1 branch or M branches. That is to say, if you're feeding a tree w/ branches {0;0} to {0;3} into one input, and a tree w branches {0;0;0} to {0;3;8} into the other input, something is probably wrong.
Grasshopper essentially matches up branches first, then lists second. By "matching" I mean it processes them together. Simple example of the Line component - it will match the first branch of points in the A input to the first branch of points in the B input, creating lines between those points, then match the second branches, the third branches, etc. THEN, it applies the same logic to the level of the list (with a pair of matched branches {0;2}, match all the items in those branches to each other - first item in one branch to the first item in the other branch, etc.)
This is a tricky concept but it seems like you're already well on your way to understanding it from your definition - "PShift" is a critical tool in your path management arsenal. I hope this (overly long) response helps clear things up for you!
…
between internal structural frameworks and non-bearing skin elements, this approach promotes heterogeneity and differentiation of material properties. The project demonstrates the notion of a structural skin using a Voronoi pattern, the density of which corresponds to multi-scalar loading conditions. The distribution of shear-stress lines and surface pressure is embodied in the allocation and relative thickness of the vein-like elements built into the skin. Its innovative 3D printing technology provides for the ability to print parts and assemblies made of multiple materials within a single build, as well as to create composite materials that present preset combinations of mechanical properties.
for registration please contact:
bioskinarc@gmail.com
tel: 09197804306
…
ther and further into a rabbit hole that has many entries AND NO exit (metaphorically and/or literally).
SPAM ON:
If you don't like membranes ... the next best option is to use some Ball Pivot Algo (NOT delauney) > triangulate the @%$@ points > create an airy truss (with W depth) > put some shading panels (or fins or something) in all modules (or some) > job done > WOW and sensible.
SPAM OFF.
3. What the greatest Ever (Mies VDR) could comment in this occasion?
4. Dark gray stuff included is a start for very big things that would happen if ... well ... who can tell? I hear you: but you intend to use code for these big things and I have no idea about all that freaky stuff (not to mention that I'm a novice) > are you a freak and/or a freak or maybe a freak? (Moral: life sucks).
5. As I said many times we must speak for long for that one. Wonder what I had in mind when I've proposed that ... well ... many replies before, he he.
Solution: phone/skype/do something…
hings like the above (say using the Brep edges + some "interconnecting" curves) is OK but only if this is some sort of decorative/artistic/academic stuff.
2. But the problem is that is not ... thus avoid at any cost this catastrophic way of thinking (tres a la mode these days, truth to be said). Why? because this is as far from engineering as a Skoda is from a Bentley. For instance imagine the cost of bending IPE/HEB/HEA/C members in order to approximate a given curvy edge. Then imagine the bespoke nodes etc etc. Then imagine the skin (avoid rain). Then go to Louvre and spend a week studying the Pyramid.
3. Use Mesh Machine and achieve a meaningful "rigid" (kinda) triangulation (planarity by default) and THEN attempt to convince ExoW to work (good luck).
4. If ExoW can cut the mustard ... well then there's only a trivial thingy left: spend zillions and create the "liquid" nodes. Why?
5. Plan B: skip 4 and create a rigid W depth truss with good old triangles. …
ve got the problem earlier, and it is the following:
In the definition that i am submitting you wil see that from a given surface I get a family of UV points, playing with'em I sort'em until i get, in one hand, 6 vertices in each branch, in consecutive order, in the other, a family of boundary hegagon lines.
The first problem is that i can't make a surface with straight boundary, it interpolate curves (option 3 in my definiton) If I could control the degree some how....
Trying to solve it with a mesh hull it does nothing but a open brep, with no surface displayed (option 2 in my def.)
Trying the same but with boundary lines, it solves a surface (a family of them) but faceted. In this case I tryied to make a surfacebox (SBox) but I don't know which domain2 is asking me to connect.
Sorry for such a love letter, but please help me out¡¡¡¡¡
Thannnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnks
P.S. the definition recycles the first part of another definition found in thin forum.…
rds of the bottom left corner of my SRTM file, and just adding the shape with the heron component in charge of it.
But i was troubled by the boundaries of the SRTM : when i set a rectangle with exaclty 1°Lon and 1°Lat (which are in my lat : {78.58245, 111.132366} [km]) the component fail, saying "index out of range", and that even if that same component is telling me that my SRTM file has a topoextent of "Rectangle (w=78.647935, h=111.224977) [km]"
i calculate the difference which are respectivly 65.485m and 92.611, and it appears to be exactly 3". I then figured out that it was the overlapping zone of the SRTM file.
so my questions are :
1 - How heron is dealing with this overlapping zone ? does it deletes them ?
2,3 - As i figured out that there is only 2 side of the 4 which are overlapped, in France it seems te be the North and Est sides i am right ? And is it the same everywhere else ?
4,5 - How can i be sure to load the entire tile ? And the same for the shape files ?
thanks…
t was a bit of nightmare - this is much more streamlined.
I must admit, matching face edge angles w/ ea face edge midpoint was a bit of a noodle baker (hence the sorting operations to get everything uniform).
Maybe I can streamline some more...
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/mesh-offset-by-face-normals-to-create-inner-surface-apply
…
Added by taz to mesh+ at 8:41am on September 4, 2015
nel adopts the shape of the host surface but is there any way to restrict the panel dimensions (W*H) to a specific maximum number?
2. I see that now parameters (minimum panel height and width) do not work. And only the Minimum area can control the panels. Is there any way that I can control the panels by their minimum height and width?
I actually want to cover the maximum surface with the panels within certain dimensions of the panels.
Is that possible through Surface Panel Mode?
Thanks a lot!
…
Horticulture and Landscape in same time.
The most common plastic materials used as agricultural films are the low density polyethylene (LDPE, with a density less than 0.93 kg m−3), the copolymer of ethylene and vinyl-acetate (EVA)
Also here you can find the characteristics of the flexible materials for greenhouse covers (adapted from CPA, 1992 and Tesi, 2001) as much as i get.
UV-PE Film ( UV-PE~ polyethylene Long life or UV)
Thickness (mm) = 0.18
Direct PAR transmissivity (%) = 90
Diffuse PAR transmissivity (%)= 86
Long-wave IR transmissivity (%)= 65
EVA Film ( EVA~Ethylene vinyl-acetate copolymer)
Thickness (mm) = 0.18
Direct PAR transmissivity (%) = 90
Diffuse PAR transmissivity (%)= 76
Long-wave IR transmissivity (%)= 27
and here you will find the global heat transfer coefficient’ (K in W m−2 °C−1) for the above greenhouse covering materials, measured under normalized conditions (temperatures: exterior: −10°C, interior: +20°C, wind: 4 m s−1). (Source: Nisen and Deltour, 1986.)
Cover Clear sky Overcast Sky
Single PE 8.8-9.0 7.1- 7.2
Single EVA 7.8 6.6
Note : the PAR radiation (photosynthetically active or photoactive radiation and its the amounts to 45–50% of the global radiation; Berninger, 1989)
The name PAR is used to designate the radiation with wavelengths useful for plant photosynthesis. It is accepted that the PAR radiation ranges from 400 to 700 nm (McCree, 1972), although some authors consider the PAR from 350 to 850 nm.
The composition of the radiation changes with time, as a function of the Sun’s elevation and the cloudiness. When the Sun is low over the horizon, the short wavelengths are reduced (less UV and more red). The clouds reduce the amount of energy, greatly decreasing the NIR.
The PAR proportion in relation to the global radiation increases with scattering (diffusion). It is lower with clear sky and in the summer (45–48%).
kind regards
rafat …
lk 2. Both of these, as far as I understand, use Open Street Map data which is WGS84. However when I superimpose the same area in Rhino I am finding they don’t match up.
Firstly I need to scale the data down by 0.001 presumably from km to m (or from m to mm???). And secondly, after the geometry has been scaled down, there is a discrepancy of 708.61m E/W and 217.52m N/S. There also looks like a slight rotation or scale difference.
Am I missing something? Since they both come from the same source and hence coordinate system, shouldn’t they align.
…