algorithmic modeling for Rhino

Search Results - 内蒙古11选5前二直选技巧『8TBH·COM』排列五大乐透现场直播开奖记录2023年3月20日2时15分32秒.H5c2a3.kuyc42eky

Event: AA Athens Visiting School 2018 - Resonance: connected hyperspace where architecture can be fluid, flexible and vivid, yet the aspect of materiality requires more attention. Action-designed structures begin to move beyond the utopian proposals of the 20th century’s manifestos and hold a place in the world of realized designs. The AA Athens Visiting School aims to bring users closer to the built environment while revisiting habits of designing, building and experiencing space through materiality. Understanding materiality and form as a ‘unified whole’, the programme integrates manufacturing techniques through the experimentation fabrication of prototypes at a 1:1 scale. Prominent Features of the workshop/ skills developed Participants become part of an active learning environment where the large tutor to student ratio allows for personalized tutorials and debates. The toolset of the Athens VS includes but is not limited to Processing and Grasshopper for Rhinoceros, as well as design analysis software. Participants gain hands-on experience on digital fabrication. Design seminars and a series of lectures support the key objectives of the programme, disseminating fundamental computational techniques, relevant critical thinking, theoretical understanding and professional awareness. Applications 1) You can make an application by completing the online application found under ‘Links and Downloads’ on the AA Visiting School page. If you are not able to make an online application, email visitingschool@aaschool.ac.uk for instructions to pay by bank transfer. 2) Once you complete the online application and make a full payment, you are registered to the programme. A CV or a portfolio is NOT required. The deadline for applications is 28 June. Location AKTO College – Athens Campus 11Α Evelpidon Street (Pedion Areos) Athens, 113 62, Greece Fees The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £695 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting membership fee. Fees do not include flights or accommodation, but accommodation options can be advised. Eligibility The workshop is open to current Undergrad and Graduate architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Adobe Creative Suite, Rhino 5. For more information, please visit: http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/VISITING/athens http://ai.aaschool.ac.uk/athens/ For inquiries, please contact: alexandros.kallegias@aaschool.ac.uk…; Added by Alexandros Kallegias at 4:48am on May 16, 2018

Topic: Cubic Close Packing: deform into rhombic dedocahedrons when they reach equilibrium. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubicClosePacking.html I was trying to model sphere lattice constrained within a boundary box. When inflated, they would not intersect with each other; they would stay in place; and would be malleable just enough to expand and fill in the gaps in between the spheres. I started off with the help of this thread here(Thanks for those contributed!). As I understood, there was a bug in Kangaroo2. Solver can't handle more than one item plugged in. So I tried to understand David's Stasiuk's Script and adopted it with a few variations, please see gh file attached. In the first 5 - I've used David Stasiuk's C# component-variable pressure (posted on June 9, 2015 at 12:25am): 'No. 4.5' being the most successful simulation so far(inflation value is kept very low so that they would not intersect); although I realised I made some math mistake in setting the close packing grid.(could be checked by plugging voronoi3D to see if the area of the rhombic faces are regular) No. 6-7 I tried with Kangaroo2 components. After consulting my tutor(Andrei Jipa)'s help, I realised the following changes could be made: - The definition posted by David on June 8, 2015 at 4:47pm with constant pressure would've worked better. - Icosahedrons with WbCatmull(Quad divisions) would result in more even load distribution. With wbloop, vertices more concentrated at poles. - Load in dir Z could be omitted. Andrei has suggested to use lengths(line) in Kangaroo 2 as 'pressure' instead. And I am trying to improve the grid; and maybe try with David's constant pressure definition. I will keep you guys posted of the progress! I am new to the parametric world, comments/advice very much appreciated! :) Zhini …; Added by Zhini Poh at 5:23pm on October 31, 2015

Comment on: Topic 'Refactoring Parametricism': 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

Comment on: Topic 'Refactoring Parametricism': as the design table? I think this could be 'drawn' and constrained in Inventor in a lot less time. I know the GH model would have a lot of flexibility, but in this case, what can you do with it that wasn't provided by an Inventor model? Only the 27 lines mentioned were modeled in Rhino, the rest is modeled with GH. The 5 hrs involved thinking about the approach, defining vertical lines, tilts, elevations, pitch of the roof, intersections. Once I had decided what my approach would be, and tested the logic with those first lines, points and data path arrangements, it only took one more hour to get to this: Which is actually quite fast, compared to MCAD workflows. If you already have components (columns, beams, etc.) modeled and ready to drop into a project, of course it is lightning fast to model simple projects like this example. I am not as much interested in those situations, because improving efficiency is straightforward and obvious. I'm more interested in situations where there are no pre-defined families of objects, in which case you need to start from scratch. The GH model I'm showing is modeled from scratch, except for the 27 lines in Rhino. Here's one obvious advantage to modeling with GH, once the definition is set-up, it's virtually effortless to change inputs and alter the overall design. Here's an example, lets say we wanted to extend the roof 3 more units, curling away from the original direction. Plan view before: And after: An MCAD app will also allow you to do this, as long as the location of additional elements follows the existing geometric method of definition. What happens if you want completely change the way you locate columns, roof slope, intersection points? In MCAD, you'll need to re-model the underlying geometry, which will take the same effort as the first round. In GH, this process is not only much faster, it's open to algorithmic approaches, galapagos, etc. and it just takes some simple re-wiring to have all down-stream elements associate themselves to this new geoemtric definition. For instance, here's the same definition applied to two curves, which are divided in GH, the resulting points are used as a starting point for lines directed at normal from curves. This is not so easy to do in MCAD.…; Added by Santiago Diaz at 7:55pm on February 24, 2011

Comment on: Topic 'Lists, Sets, Strings & Trees': occur more than once in the same list, and different elements with identical values can occur more than once. Also, a list may contain lack of elements, referred to as "nulls". Sets. Strictly speaking a Set is a mathematical construct which adheres to a strict collection of rules and limitations. Basically, a Set is the same as a List, with the exception that it cannot contain the same element more than once, or indeed two or more different elements with the same values. You see, in mathematics there is no difference between a value and an instance of that value, they are the same thing. In programming however it is possible to store the number 7 in more than one spot in the RAM. Grasshopper does not enforce this rule very strongly though, you can use a lot of Set components on lists that have multiple occurrences of the same value. The big difference between Lists and Sets in Grasshopper is that Sets are only defined for simple data types that have trivial equality comparisons. Basically: booleans, integers, numbers, complex numbers, strings, points, vectors, colours and intervals. Lists can contain all kinds of data. Strings. Strings are text. There's nothing more to it. I don't know why early programmers chose to call them strings, but I suppose it's a better description of the memory representation of them. Strings are essentially sequences of individual characters. Trees. Trees are the way all data is stored in Grasshopper. Even when you only have a single item, it will still be stored in a tree. A tree is a sorted collection of lists, where each list is identified by a path. A specific path can only occur once in a tree, when you merge two trees together, lists with identical paths are appended to each other. Trees are an attempt to losslessly represent not just the data itself, but also the history of that data. Imagine you have 4 curves {A,B,C,D} and you divide each into 3 points {X,Y,Z}. Then, for each of those points you create a new line segment {X',Y',Z'} and then divide each of those line segments again into 5 points each {K,L,M,N,O}. The way data is stored in trees, it should be possible to figure out whether a point M belongs to X' or to Z', and whether that X' or Z' came from A, B, C or D. This is why paths are often quite long after a while, because they encode a lot of history. Paths. A Path is nothing more than a list of integers. It's denoted using curly brackets and semi-colons: {A;B;...;Z}. A Path should never be empty {} or have negative integers {0;-1}, but it is certainly possible to create a path like this and it probably won't even crash Grasshopper. Paths are 'grown' by components that (potentially) create more than one output value for a single input value. For example Divide Curve. It creates N points for every single input curve. In cases like this a new integer is appended to the end of the path. In the next release the Path logic in Grasshopper is somewhat different. I fixed a number of obscure bugs (hopefully without introducing new fresh bugs) and special cased certain operations to somewhat reduce the speed at which paths grow. This may well break files that rely on a specific tree layout, but I hope the temporary sacrifice will be worth the long-term benefits. -- David Rutten david@mcneel.com Poprad, Slovakia…; Added by David Rutten at 12:54am on June 21, 2012

Event: AA Summer DLAB 2017: n complex architectural design and fabrication processes, relying heavily on materiality and performance. The programme brings together a range of experts – tutors and lecturers – from internationally acclaimed academic institutions and practices, Architectural Association, Zaha Hadid Architects, among others. Taking place at the unique atmosphere of AA’s London home, the three-week long programme is formulated as a two-stage process. During the initial stage, participants are introduced to core concepts related to material processes, computational methods, and various digital fabrication techniques. During the second stage, the fabrication and assembly of a full-scale architectural intervention with the use of robotic fabrication techniques unifies the design goals of the programme. Prominent Features of the programme: • Teaching team: Participants engage in an active learning environment where the large tutor to student ratio (5:1) allows for personalized tutorials and debates. • Facilities: AA Digital Prototyping Lab (DPL) offers laser cutting, CNC milling, 3d printing facilities, and 2 KUKA robotic arms. • Computational skills: The toolset of Summer DLAB includes but is not limited to Rhinoceros, Processing, Grasshopper, and various analysis tools. • Theoretical understanding: The dissemination of fundamental design techniques and relevant critical thinking methodologies through theoretical sessions and seminars forms one of the major goals of Summer DLAB. • Professional awareness: Participants ranging from 2nd year students to PhD candidates and full-time professionals experience a highly-focused collaborative educational model which promotes research-based design and making. • Robotic Fabrication: According to the specific agenda of each year, scaled working models are produced via advanced digital machining tools, followed by the fabrication of one-to-one scale prototypes with the use of KUKA KR60 and KR30 robots. • Lecture series: Taking advantage of its unique location, London, Summer DLAB creates a vibrant atmosphere with its intense lecture programme. Eligibility: The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide. Accreditation: Participants gain 1 Year AA Visiting Membership and are awarded AA Certificate of Attendance at the successful completion of AA Summer DLAB. Applications: The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £1900 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting Membership fee. Discount options for groups are available. Please contact the AA Visiting School Coordinator for more details. The deadline for applications is 17 July 2017. No portfolio or CV, only requirement is the online application form and fees. The online application can be reached from: https://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/ONLINEAPPLICATION/visitingApplication.php?schoolID=460 For inquiries, please contact: elif.erdine@aaschool.ac.uk (Programme Head) alexandros.kallegias@aaschool.ac.uk (Programme Head)…; Added by elif erdine at 4:53pm on May 6, 2017

Event: AA Summer DLAB 2019: lysis, and large-scale prototyping techniques. The research generated at Summer DLAB has been published in international media and peer-reviewed conference papers. AA Summer DLAB investigates on the correlations between form, material, and structure through the rigorous implementation of computational methods for design, analysis, and fabrication, coupled with analog modes of physical experimentation. Each cycle of the programme devises custom-made architectural processes through the creation of novel associations between conventional and contemporary design and fabrication techniques. The research culminates in the design and fabrication of a one-to-one scale prototype realized by robotic fabrication techniques. Prominent Features of the programme: Teaching team: Summer DLAB tutors are selected from recent graduates / current tutors at the AA and the small student ratio (5:1) allows for personalized tutorials and debates. Facilities: AA Digital Prototyping Lab (DPL) offers laser cutting, CNC milling, and 3d printing facilities, and 2 KUKA robotic arms. Computational skills: The toolset of Summer DLAB includes but is not limited to Rhinoceros, Grasshopper and various computational analysis tools. Theoretical understanding: The dissemination of fundamental design techniques and relevant critical thinking methodologies through theoretical sessions and seminars forms one of the major goals of Summer DLAB. Professional awareness: Participants ranging from 2nd year students to PhD candidates and full-time professionals experience a highly-focused collaborative educational model which promotes research-based design and making. Robotic Fabrication: Scaled working models are produced via advanced digital machining tools each year, followed by the fabrication of 1:1 scale prototypes with the use of KUKA KR60 and KR30 robots. Lecture series: Taking advantage of its unique location, London, Summer DLAB creates a vibrant atmosphere with its intense lecture programme. Eligibility: The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide. Accreditation: Participants gain 1 Year AA Visiting Membership and are awarded AA Certificate of Attendance at the successful completion of AA Summer DLAB. Applications: The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £1950 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting Membership fee. Discount options for groups are available. Please contact the AA Visiting School Coordinator for more details. The deadline for applications is 08 July 2019. No portfolio or CV, only requirement is the online application form and fees. The online application can be reached from: https://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/ONLINEAPPLICATION/visitingApplication.php?schoolID=603 For inquiries, please contact: elif.erdine@aaschool.ac.uk (Programme Head) …; Added by elif erdine at 10:16am on February 19, 2019

Blog Post: NEGATIVE PRECISION, THE STENCIL OF POWER (FILES + DIGITAL & MANUAL DIY), DESIGN PARAMETRIC FACADES IN EXCEL & BUILD AT HOME!: The long version post on my …; Added by sstudiomm at 1:34pm on September 10, 2016

Blog Post: How to create a simple web browser game: This article will take you through the steps necessary to create and deploy a simple Java game that can be played online.

Using the mouse you will move a white dot around…; Added by Mihai Pruna at 4:36pm on January 5, 2014

Topic: Update + Happy Yalda!: t. So here we go! 1. Honeybee is brown and not yellow [stupid!]... As you probably remember Honeybee logo was initially yellow because of my ignorance about Honeybees. With the help of our Honeybee expert, Michalina, now the color is corrected. I promised her to update everyone about this. Below are photos of her working on the honeybee logo and the results of her study. If you think I'm exaggerating by calling her a honeybee expert you better watch this video: Thank you Michalina for the great work! :). I corrected the colors. No yellow anymore. The only yellow arrows represent sun rays and not the honeybee! 2. Yellow or brown, W[here]TH Honeybee is? I know. It has been a long time after I posted the initial video and it is not fun at all to wait for a long time. Here is the good news. If you are following the Facebook page you probably now that the Daylighting components are almost ready. Couple of friends from Grasshopper community and RADIANCE community has been helping me with testing/debugging the components. I still think/hope to release the daylighting components at some point in January before Ladybug gets one year old. There have been multiple changes. I finally feel that the current version of Honeybee is simple enough for non-expert users to start running initial studies and flexible enough for advanced users to run advanced studies. I will post a video soon and walk you through different components. I think I still need more time to modify the energy simulation components so they are not going to be part of the next release. Unfortunately, there are so many ways to set up and run a wrong energy simulation and I really don’t want to add one new GIGO app to the world of simulation. We already have enough of that. Moreover I’m still not quite happy with the workflow. Please bear with me for few more months and then we can all celebrate! I recently tested the idea of connecting Grasshopper to OpenStudio by using OpenStudio API successfully. If nothing else, I really want to release the EnergyPlus components so I can concentrate on Grasshopper > OpenStudio development which I personally think is the best approach. 3. What about wind analysis? I have been asked multiple times that if Ladybug will have a component for wind study. The short answer is YES! I have been working with EFRI-PULSE project during the last year to develop a free and open source web-based CFD simulation platform for outdoor analysis. We had a very good progress so far and our rockstar Stefan recently presented the results of the work at the American Physical Society’s 66th annual DFD meeting and the results looks pretty convincing in comparison to measured data. Here is an image from the presentation. All the credits go to Stefan Gracik and EFRI-PULSE project. The project will go live at some point next year and after that I will release the Butterfly which will let you prepare the model for the CFD simulation and send it to EFRI-PULSE project. I haven’t tried to run the simulations locally yet but I’m considering that as a further development. Here is how the component and the logo looks like right now. 4. Teaching resources It has been almost 11 months from the first public release of Ladybug. I know that I didn't do a good job in providing enough tutorials/teaching materials and I know that I won’t be able to put something comprehensive together soon. Fortunately, ladybug has been flying in multiple schools during the last year. Several design, engineering and consultant firms are using it and it has been thought in several workshops. As I checked with multiple of you, almost everyone told me that they will be happy to share their teaching materials; hence I started the teaching resources page. Please share your materials on the page. They can be in any format and any language. Thanks in advance! I hope you enjoyed/are enjoying/will enjoy the longest night of the year. Happy Yalda! Cheers, -Mostapha …; Added by Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari to Ladybug Tools at 3:54pm on December 21, 2013