n lofting, though, it makes perfect sense to scale sections independently from the distance between them.
For practical use, I found the graph mapper clumsy; too course and approximate. So I adapted the code I wrote here (Maths + Divide Curve) so that a list of numbers drives the spacing and, optionally(!), the scaling.
When 'Scale by Distance' is false, the numbers in the list determine scaling; '1' is actual size, '0.5' is half size, '2' is twice the size, etc.
When 'Scale by Distance' is true, the distance between the points is used for scaling. This is an indirect effect of the list of numbers (which determines point spacing) and the size of the original shape relative to the curve length.
'Tangent 0' is the curve tangent at each point. It works well for lofting.
'Tangent 1' is the vector between each point and its successor. It works well for orienting solids.
There are still some mysteries... ("Where there is mystery, there is no mastery.")
Lofting doesn't always work well, 'Cap Planar Holes' doesn't work anymore...
I had hoped that this sequence, ".5,1,2,1,.5", would result in:
two half size shapes, one at each end of the curve.
two full size ("1") and one double size ("2") shapes, spaced appropriately.
But I have a mental block about how to achieve that...? :( Instead, I settled for the last of the five shapes being one point short from the end of the curve, and the spacing is off.
Even so, I find this approach easier to use on a practical basis than the graph mapper.
…
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.…
hacia donde crecerán las venas, y tenemos otro conjunto de puntos 'N' que son los que forman el patrón de venas.
1. Por cada 's' perteneciente a S, buscamos el 'n' perteneciente a N más cercano. Ese 'n' va a "moverse".
2. Por cada 'n' que se mueve, hacemos un vector dirigido a todos los 's' hacia los que se mueve.
3. Calculamos el vector medio de todos los vectores del paso 2, movemos 'n' con ese vector y lo añadimos a V.
4. Si algún 's' está muy cerca de algún 'n', ese 's' se elimina.
5. Se repite el proceso.
Esto es para formar venaciones abiertas sin autocrecimiento (como la siguiente imagen, hecho con Visual Basic).
Para las cerradas (las reticuladas que forman algo como células, como en la imagen tuya), el paso 1 y 4 son distintos y no sabría decirte cómo hacerlo. En ese pdf explica un método usando delaunay pero es muy lento, además gh no tiene ese algoritmo en 3d (entonces solo se podría hacer este patrón en 2d), por lo que estoy buscando otras vías, solo he logrado llegar a esto:
Es más complicado de lo que parece.
No obstante, si te conformas con menos, hay muchas formas de crear raíces y patrones similares, con SortestWalk, Anemone, etc... Hay ejemplos en este foro.
Si realmente quieres conseguir ese patrón, deberías aprender a programar porque para añadir distintos radios a las venas es necesario que las venas tengan topología y eso se complica demasiado desde gh. Nervous System para su "Hyphae" usó C++ con la librería CGAL, que es una muy poderosa librería de algoritmos de 3d.
…
d work exactly as the physical model. In the model, we have a curved surface which can be analysed into squares. These squares are filled with two kind of units which are connected with each other and create a grid that follows this curved surface.
We have managed to analyse this curved surface into a planar surface consisted of squares and we painted the squares with colours to represent the kind of unit that "fills" each square. So, now in rhino I have managed to build the curved surface that I want it to be filled with the two types of units.
I also have the planar surface built in Gh with the squares split into two lists, each one for each kind of unit. Because these units are mambranes, I used kangaroo to make them act like mambranes.
I hope I described the problem clearly. The point is to keep the dimensions of the units
the same and make it work in Kangaroo. Do you have anything in mind that I should look up or any advice ? Thank you in advance and i m sorry for the extended description.
*Pic 1: the curved surfaces that has to be filled with the units
*Pic 2: The binary system that shows which square is occupied by which unit
Blue=2 , Red=1, White= Blank
*Pic 3: unit 1
*Pic 4: unit 2
*Pic 5: a point of view of the physical model (not the final curve at the surface)
…
e.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=chriswmackey&fork=hydra_2&id=Outdoor_Microclimate_Map
Thank you very much in advance!
1. why the underground zone representing the ground is defined as a plenum zone? By default, an office zone program is assigned. Will this affect the outside surface temperature of the ground plenum zone and affect, in turn, the outdoor microclimate map calculation?
2. I assume the construction GroundMaterial composed of five layers of 200mm concrete materials as assigned to the ground plenum zone is to assimilate a ground surface composed of thick concrete. But why this construction is assigned to this zone using both the Set EP Zone Construction and Set EP Zone Underground Construction components? Will the surfaces of this zone automatically recognized as underground surfaces based on their positions in relation to the default xy plane?
3. why a brep is connected to the input node distFromFloorOrSrf on the Indoor View Factor Calculator component which is expecting a number according to its annotation?
4. why the outdoor comfort analysis recipe is used for the indoor comfort analysis component?
5. why the OutdoorComfResult and DegFromNeutralResult are 2 csv files with PPD and PMV values if PMV/PPD thermal comfort model is only applicable to indoor air-conditioned space?
…
the following image of a hut.
I do not have experience using kangaroo to simulate forces, but I have made a test using multiple random components on a flat surface to fake the effect I'm going for. See image below.
The main issue I'm having is that the original file used for my test surface used box morph and the variable pipe command. Box morph is a bit touchy on a curved surface and it is not as elegant as I would like it to be (ie. I want all the hair diameters to be perfectly circular and uniform in size). Variable pipe also does not align the base of the hair with the existing surface, which means I have to offset the surface and then trim the excess of my pipe.....leading to heavy code and the file crashing.
So I'm trying to rebuild the "hairs" using a new method:
1) Subdivide the surface
2) Find the midpoint of each surface and then create a straight line that is perpendicular
3) Move a point along the on the straight line (between the start and end points) in the z direction, and then create a nurbs curve using this point and the start and end points
4) create a circle at the base of each crv, and then two more circles: one at the point in the middle point (I think I set it to .9) and the end of the curve
5) The problem: Now I am trying to sweep along these three circles and the nurbs curve to create a bent hair/pipe that is flush with the conic surface, but it does not work.
If someone can help that would be amazing. I've included my original surface test file and my new file where I am rebuilding using the sweep command. Below is a drawing of what I'm trying to achieve.
…
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
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.
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.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
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.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011