t'd be great.
I am trying in Rhino 5 and would like to understand where to get the documentation and get the feel for the differences.
Also, do you write such scripts directly in the component? Or elsewhere? How can one debug them?
Thank you for your help.
Option ExplicitCall Main()Sub Main() Dim arrObjects, arrMP, i Dim offsetSize offsetSize = 1 arrObjects = Rhino.GetObjects("Select curves to offset") If IsArray(arrObjects) Then For i = 0 To UBound(arrObjects) arrMP = Rhino.CurveAreaCentroid(arrObjects(i)) If IsArray(arrMP) Then Dim arrNewobject, strGroup, grpName arrNewobject = Rhino.OffsetCurve(arrObjects(i), arrMP(0), offsetSize, ,2) Rhino.AddLayer("offset") Rhino.ObjectLayer arrObjects(i),"offset" Rhino.ObjectLayer arrNewobject,"offset" strGroup = Rhino.AddGroup Rhino.AddObjectsToGroup arrObjects(i), strGroup Rhino.AddObjectsToGroup arrNewobject, strGroup End If Next End If End Sub
…
ask for some help and I sent the def to someone who tested the def out and made it work and send it right back to me and I got the same error I realized something wasnt right.
here some images of what the def does
Flat hexagonal panels over a given surface.
I get errors with the sliders and the VB script. Original script by Luis Fraguada from LAN then Davide del Giudice/ from madeincalifornia Checked out the definition because I have almost no knowledge with scripting and he made it work and sent those images back to me and this definition fixed, wich doesnt work on my computer and here some images of the problem.
and here some images of the problem.
…
rera de Arquitectura CEM | presenta la cordial invitación al Curso de Diseño Computacional a realizarse en nuestros laboratorios de Arquitectura y Diseño Industrial del Campus Estado de México.
Fecha: jueves 21, viernes 22 de 18: a 22:00 Hrs y sábado 23 de 8:00 a 15:00 Hrs febrero 2013. 15 Horas.
El taller está orientado a estudiantes y profesionales de la Arquitectura, Arte, el Diseño e Ingeniería.
COSTO:
Alumnos Tec o EXATEC con una cuota de $2000.00 pesos.* Estudiantes EXTERNOS y profesores TEC $3000.00*, Estudiantes de posgrado externos $3800.00* y Profesionales externos $4250.00 pesos.*
OBJETIVO GENERAL:
Alfabetización sobre lectura y escritura de herramientas computacionales para el desarrollo de la Arquitectura, Diseño e Ingeniería.
Objetivos específicos:
1. Comprenderá los conceptos metodológicos del Diseño Computacional y generativo.
2. Aplicará las metodologías en el diseño, análisis y despiece de una cubierta (celosía, muro, losa, fachada o mobiliario) con base en un espacio existente en el campus.
3. Desarrollará los conceptos de programación orientada a objetos (POO Intermedia)
4. Generará algoritmos y análisis en Grasshopper sobre el ejemplo de praxis.
5. Desarrollo de documentación y presentación de resultados.
6. Fabricación del objeto, escala por definir.
Requisitos: Conocimiento de alguna plataforma CAD/CAM/CAE.
Profesor:
Arq. David Hernández Melgarejo.
http://bioarchitecturestudio.wordpress.com
Mayor información:
Kathrin Schröter, Dipl.-Ing./Arch. (D)
Directora de la Carrera de Arquitectura e Ingeniería Civil
Escuela de Diseño, Ingeniería y Arquitectura
Campus Estado de México
TEC DE MONTERREY
Tel.: (52/55) 5864 5555 Ext. 5685 o 5750
Enlace intercampus:80.236.5685
Fax: (52/55) 5864 5319
kschroter@itesm.mx
www.itesm.mx
…
http://www.pilkington.com/) dominates the planar market. Charges "around" 1K Euros per m2 for a "plain" system. Personally in bespoke projects I design my own stuff but due to economies of scale ... they cost a bit more (but they look far more sexier, he he) . On the other hand only in a bespoke project I could dare to suggest such a solution (for a large scale building we are talking lots and lots of dollars).
3. Several scales below (aesthetics) you can find static alu systems (either structural or semi-structural):
Or hinged systems (either structural or semi-structural) capable to adapt in contemporary double curvature facades/roofs/envelopes/cats/dogs etc etc ... pioneered worldwide many years ago by my best friend Stefanos Tampakakis (everybody in UAE knows that genius man: http://www.alustet.gr/company.html):
4. With the exception of some paranoid things that Guru Stefanos does for Zaha these days we are talking about planar "facets" (obviously a triangle is such a planar facet). The current trend is: the more edges the better (humans excel in vanity matters). But achieving planarity in, say, quads (like yours) it adds another "restriction" on what you are doing. Until recently Evolute Tools Pro was the only answer. But right now ... well let's say that in short time you'll be greatly surprised by some WOW things in this Noble Forum, he he.
5. MERO (and obviously custom systems) can adapt (at almost no extra charge) in anything imaginable. But in a bespoke building ... well.. you know ultra rich people: they don't want MERO anymore since "everybody" does MERO solutions. Vanity, what else?
6. Smart Glass would become a must in the years to come: Eco-Architecture MUST dominate everything you do. On the other hand spending millions to do some extra WOW stuff (Vanity) ... it doesn't look to me very Eco-Friendly/Whatever ... but let's pretend so, he he.
7. I'm Architect but a bit different from the norm: for instance I smoke cigars (highly politically incorrect stuff) I always talk openly (ditto) and I ride lethal bikes (ditto).
may the Force (as always the Dark Option) be with you: go out there and kill them all.
best, Peter
…
a and we'll stop adding new stuff. At this point the Grasshopper version will be rolled to 1.0 Beta 1 and we'll keep on fixing serious bugs, resulting in Grasshopper 1.0 Beta 2 etc. etc. until the product is stable enough to be treated as a commercially viable product.
This does not mean Grasshopper will no longer be free. Robert McNeel & Associates (who develop and own the copyrights to Grasshopper) haven't decided yet whether or not to sell Grasshopper or whether to keep it as a free plug-in for Rhino customers.
As soon as Grasshopper 1.0 goes into beta, all development (apart from the odd bug-fix) stops and we start typing on Grasshopper 2.0. It will probably be a few months until the first 2.0 WIP version is released but basically the whole process starts over.
What are we looking to accomplish for 1.0 and which things are planned for 2.0 and beyond? The only major feature still missing in 1.0 is the Remote Control Panel. This feature was removed at some point and has been partially rewritten since then. Once it's finished, we consider the 1.0 feature set to be complete.
To be honest we've made very few concrete plans yet concerning 2.0, however it's clear that some things need to be at least seriously considered and researched. Here follows a list in no particular order:
Documentation System. This is one of the things we know we're going to do as we've already started. The Grasshopper help system will need to be rewritten and a lot of help topics need to be typed up. We have a pretty good idea what it is we want to accomplish with the new help and how we're going to go about it.
Vocabulary. Along with new documentation we'll critically analyse the current terminology and vocabulary of Grasshopper. We'll probably come up with glossaries and style sheets. We want to use words that are —at best— self documenting and —at worst— non ambiguous.
SDK and core library cleanup/improvement. Grasshopper was the first large scale product I ever developed and a lot of mistakes were made in the SDK design. A lot of functions and classes have been marked obsolete over time and many operations are not properly bottlenecked. I also want to add a lot more events so it's easier for code to keep close tabs on what's going on at any given moment.
GUI platform. At the moment Grasshopper is pure .NET winforms using GDI+ for all the interface drawing. There are certain performance issues with using large GDI+ surfaces and certain limitations on what we can and cannot draw. We will be investigating other graphics pipelines such as WPF, OpenGL, DirectX, OpenTK and whatever else seems promising.
Multi-threading. It is clear that some components are embarrassingly parallel, and since almost every single laptop and desktop has at least 4 cores these days it would be a shame not to use them. We will investigate what it takes to implement multi-threading as a standard feature.
Large file support. Grasshopper becomes awkward to use when a document contains more than a hundred or so components. We need to both improve the interface to provide methods for layering or grouping sub-algorithms and also add ways to reduce memory and computational overhead.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
three categories, each one corresponding to different shapeType_ input:- polygons (shapeType_ = 0): anything consisted of closed polygons: buildings, grass areas, forests, lakes, etc
- polylines (shapeType_ = 1): non closed polylines as: streets, roads, highways, rivers, canals, train tracks ...- points (shapeType_ = 2): any point features, like: Trees, building entrances, benches, junctions between roads... Store locations: restaurants, bars, pharmacies, post offices...
So basically when you ran the "OSM shapes" component with the shapeType_ = 2, you will get a lot of points. If you would like to get only 3d trees, you run the "OSM 3D" component and it will create 3d trees from only those points which are in fact trees. You can also check which points are trees by looking at the exact location on openstreetmap.org. For example:
Or use the "OSM Search" component which will identify all trees among the points, regardless of whether 3d trees can be created or not.However, when it comes to 3d trees there is a catch:
Sometimes the geometry which Gismo streams from OpenStreetMap.org does not contain a "height" key. Or it does contain it but the value for that key is missing.OpenStreetMap is free editable map database, so anyone with internet access and free registered account on openstreetmap.org can add features (like trees) to the map database. However, regular people sometimes do not have height measuring devices which are needed for specific objects as trees.So "OSM 3D" component will generate 3d trees from only those tree points which contain a valid "height" key.However, a small workaround is to input a domain(range) into the randomHeightRange_ input of "OSM 3D" component (for example the following one: "5 to 10"):
This will result in creation of other 3d trees which do not have defined height, by randomizing their height. randomHeightRange_ input can also be applied to 3d buildings, and it is definitively something I need to write a separate article on.
In the end it may be that nobody mapped the trees in the area you are looking for.
After you map a tree to openstreetmap.org then it will instantly be available to you or any other user of Gismo. I will be adding some tutorials in the future on how this can be done. But probably not in the next couple of weeks.
Let me know if any of this helps, or if I completely misunderstood your issue.…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 3:52am on February 8, 2017
_b2 texfunc WoodGrain_tex
6 xgrain_dx ygrain_dx zgrain_dx woodtex.cal -s 0.01
0
1 0.075
WoodGrain_tex plastic WoodGrain_NonColor2
0
0
5 0.364 0.187 0.072 0.006 0.0
This creates the texture (on the table) below:
Is it possible for me to use a multi-modifier material like this in Honeybee ?
Thanks,
Sarith
(Update: I figured out a hack to do this in MSH2RAD but I still don't know if it is possible to add this to the Honeybee Library).…
..
The problem is that using the index, adding a activies, the next activies change the index and then the link is wrong.
example: I need to connect to hotel function with house function, therefore i have 0 and 4 index in my panel.. So i have to extract the index linked to the alphabetical value to be able to draw lines between the points associated to the names of activities. Now if i add a new string between the values, the house activity hasn't the original index 4 but the new index 5. So the link will be not created between hotel and house but hotel e new activity in the index 4.
…
The first is that XML requires that there be one root tag, where GH does not necessarily require their be one trunk to build its tree. In more GH specific terms, any XML document would always require that a path be {0;....} and there could never be a path like {1;...} or {13;....}. The fact that GH rarely does this is inconsequential, because its possible, so therefore has to be dealt with somehow. The first option is to simply have the component throw an error and not write the XML. That's fine, but in order to use the data you'd have to start remapping or splitting out your tree... not fun. The second option would be to wrap the data in a root tag so that the XML requirements are met, however this is manipulating the data that you're saving which I don't like. The third option, would be to write each root trunk out into separate files. The easiest option is 2, but I don't like modifying the data, although it would be possible to put attribute on that root tag to discard it if it was later read back into GH.
The second issue is that in order to write comprehensible XML, you'd need to specify the element names along with the values, which has the potential to be very cumbersome. In your case, you have all your tag names there and are just looking to modify the data that was in those tags, but this is definitely the best case scenario. If the ability is there to write xml, then that means it can come from anywhere in GH, not just from a previously parsed xml doc. Inevitably, assuming one would go through the hassle of creating names for all their xml elements, invariably there would be an path that would be missed, so what would you do as the name for that element? Throw an error? write out something else based on the path? Taking this to the extreme, would it be possible for someone just to supply data with no element names whatsoever?
In thinking about that last question, it would be nice if the GH path could be used for writing out the element names, but unfortunately both curly brackets and semicolons are invalid in element names (ie so <{0;1;0;5}>SomeData</{0;1;0;5}> is invalid because of the {,}, and ; characters. Element names also can't start with a number). So in order to write out an actual GH path, it would need to be transformed in some manner so that the previous example might look something like this <GhPath_0-1-0-5>SomeData</GhPath_0-1-0-5>
There are a bunch of other potential issues as well that would likely leave writing xml from GH in somewhat limited state. Some of those include enforcing/validating schema and supporting for other xml features(such as CData).
Ultimately, when I first wrote the xml parser I wasn't sure what people's needs were going to be in regards to using XML in GH. Based on the two main issues I outlined above, I chose to leave writing xml out for the time being. Its not that it can't be done (far from it actually), some decisions just have to be made pertaining to those issues. It does seam like it would be something useful, so I'll begin to look into adding it, and if you've got some other suggestions or preferences about which solution would be better, then sound off.
EDIT:
One thing I should note, all of my comments above pertain to saving xml. Once you've parsed an xml file, its no longer xml, its just regular data with GH which can be manipulated however you prefer. It would be entirely possible to to use GH's tree manipulation and list tools to move chunks of xml around, remap xml, etc.…
is also takes place in own system. However, this action can be also carried out successfully by a foreign reference, if this considers the focused system as own. Hence, these two criteria are considered in my reflexions, to make your criticism handier for me.
First the question must be put up, how is it in your case? Of friendly manner you answer this question perpetually with the statement that you are not a partial of the system of the architecture.
Furthermore the question would be appropriate, whether an external reference (eg CAD) determined architecture. This can be answered with no, because determining and influencing are different things.
Because you stress now your criticism as a foreign criticism, within the architecture the assuption must be put up, that this criticism is not unusual new on the one hand (because this condition were also in other times like that, and presumably also always so remain) and further more a lack of goodwill in your criticism comes to light, which perhaps distinguishes an external reference.
Based on your critique, it would be also desirable in the system of the architecture if the academic rules become satisfyingly followed, even if this is no guarantor for good academic works. Nevertheless, there is an aspect which at least tolerates the evident lack in the Interdiziplinarität of the architecture. This is the classical and still valid determination of the architecture, presumably regulates not only the actions of the architects, but also those who want to become it.
Many who stand in your criticism (the students, as well as the teachers, ... ), live in the awareness that architecture is a profession that combines as many areas around the topic of Building, and the architect is even only one dilettante among the external specialists. In this determination dilettantism is revalued rather positively, because this state the architects enables to assess the facets of a complicated building project better and to form thereby the whole result positively. To be a good architect, you should have circumspect specialists around yourself. And exactly this knows the system of the architecture, because "THE ARCHITECT" helps himself with the logic of other systems (to repair on the one hand his own deficits), and to create an artificial complexity, which ultimately aims to be the complexity of human beeing.
Here "THE ARCHITECTS" becomes a quality-spoken, which currently seems the external reference (CAD, BIM) would like to take claim for themselves.
........
If would not thought about it, this might be helpful:http://www.amazon.com/The-Alphabet-Algorithm-Writing-Architecture/dp/0262515806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376920450&sr=8-1&keywords=mario+carpo"Finally, I’d like to restate my criticisms in general terms. If we are serious about moving architecture and urbanism away from purely artistic considerations and into a more rational arena, there has never been a better time than now. All of us have access to immense computational power which can be applied to problems that have been —until quite recently— intractable. But of course the garbage-in-garbage-out adage holds true; computation can be used to generate large amounts of complexity, but complexity does not equal worth. The only time when it makes sense to invoke computation in the design process is when there is some relevant data that needs to be computed" (David Rutton)I want to make it short, and just ask a few questions, and hope that the following questions are relevant also for you, and not be considered outside your system. i think that the weighting to such questions seem to be more valuable, not for the architects.1. What is wrong from a pure artistic intention?2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?4. What is purely architectural discourse?5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support? 6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ? 7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?…