o be less from a tool-centric perspective, and more often geared toward general platforms (like BIM, or "computational" design).
For papers, I would search Cumincad first, as it captures a great deal of history as well as more current research from the proceedings of the eCAADe and ACADIA family of conferences. There are thousands of articles there.
Robert Woodbury's "Elements of Parametric Design" is considered pretty foundational. Sean Ahlquist and Achim Menges also put together a good anthology a few years back called "Computational Design Thinking" that collects several texts that are in line with the ICD's interests in biomimesis and emergence. "Inside Smartgeometry" is a good combination of theory, historical reflection, and state-of-the-art and edited by Brady and Terri Peters.
But really there is so much out there! One of my favorite short papers is Tom Maver's "CAAD's Seven Deadly Sins" which was basically a keynote mic-drop at the 1995 CAAD Futures conference. I'll spoil the end for you:
"7 Failure to criticise: Above all we have failed to exercise our critical faculties in relation to almost all of the research and development carried out by ourselves and by our peers in recent years. There has been a cosy conspiracy in the community to condone, even encourage, selfindulgent speculation and solipsism - a thoroughly bad example to set for young people in the academic community.
Conclusion: Perhaps these criticism are unjustly hard. Hopefully CAAD Futures 95 will prove me wrong or at least provide the opportunity for discussion."
…
Added by David Stasiuk at 11:10am on August 25, 2015
tween them)
However its not possible (Well its very tricky) for me to go back to the original geometry and merge the perimeter and the core into one zone.
As a result I thought that adding internal glazing would do the trick. However apart from using the addGlazing component I couldn't see any other way of adding internal glazing to the core zone without exploding it and putting it back together. So I modified the Glazing based on Ratio component so that the internal walls of the core would automatically be 95% glazing.
After passing the core zone through the modified Glazing based on Ratio component and then passing all the HB zones through the Solve Adjacency component I ran the daylight simulation. However the result is not what you would expect it appears as though there are no internal windows. (See the picture).
So two questions.
1. Is there a better way to merge these zones for a daylight study without going back to the original geometry?
2. From the illuminance map it appears that no light is passing through the internal windows. Why is this the case? Should I create a material that is like air so that the light can effectively pass through and then use this material instead?
…
ple I have to drag it through a panel before I can use it as an input to my python script. The supports comes as a list of strings (see figure) and I want to extract some of that information (e.g. what nodes are fixed) and write that to my txt file.
I extract the info with these lines:
for row in Support: node = row[8:row.find(' DOF')] file.write(" %s,\n" % node)
print node
>> 95
If I however don't drag it via a panel i get the following output:
for row in Support: node = row[8:row.find(' DOF')] file.write(" %s,\n" % node)
print node
>> Supports.Suppor
It's like the script doesn't get that each row is a string.
I have the input set to "list access" and type hint to "str" and I've tried to simplifying and flatten the list.
Greatful for help…
have some spare time please fill in my 3D Printing Open Survey - If you could make almost anything, what would it be ? Updated results are publicly available after completing questionnaire (Please press "Wyślij" - Send button and "Wyniki ankiety" - Results button at the end). This survey will be used to evaluate demand for 3d printing services globally. It consist of 30 questions about: - open-source 3d printers - future of additive manufacturing - 3d printing services - ecology in 3d printing - copyright issues and 3d printing Three example questions: 2. Which of the following 3d printing applications is the most interesting? * - Things personalization - Printing food - Attempts to print structures resembles in functioning living tissues or blood vessels - Creating impossible or difficult to create by using conventional technology things - Printing rooms or buildings on earth/moon - Printing chemical compounds (for example drugs) - Using in renewable energy sources - Printing parts and/or mechanical vehicles 3 . Have you ever heard about cheap DIY 3D Printers (for example RepRap, PrintrBot, MakiBox A6) ? * DIY - Do It Yourself - Yes - No 4 . When 3D Printers will become one of the typical household appliances ? * - After 5 years - After 10 years - After 15 years - After 20 years or later - Never - I don't know Feel free to ask questions!…
t BBox will then be mapped relative to the UVW space of that box to the new target boxes.
Where your definition is slipping up is the data matching aspect of GH. You have two lists (that count). One list contains 100 items of target boxes and the other contains 2 items of geometry. GH defaults to the Longest List data matching
List A --> List B
Target Box A0 --> Cuboid
Target Box A1 --> Cylinder
Target Box A2 --> (Oops List B has run out of items. Now GH will repeat the last item = Cylinder)
Target Box A3 --> Cylinder
.....
Target Box J9 --> Cylinder
Solution
There are two approaches to rectify this the most logical would be to group the geometries into one object (What you had in mind with the bounding box) to do this use the Group Component on the Transform Tab > Utility Panel.
The other approach is far more common in GH mentality. Use the Graft, right click the G input of Morph and select Graft from the Context Menu. This places all of the items in the List on to separate branches. Creating a list of lists (although these new list only have one item). When GH now tries to data match them it will apply the whole of the first geometry list (Only the Cuboid) to all of the target boxes and all of the second list (Cylinder) to the target boxes again.
I hope this helps…
n make it possible to Motivation generate
a variety of interesting objects, from abstract fractals to plant-like
branching structures, their modeling power is quite limited. A major
problem can be traced to the reduction of all lines to integer multiples
of the unit segment. As a result, even such a simple figure as an
isosceles right-angled triangle cannot be traced exactly, since the ratio
of its hypotenuse length to the length of a side is expressed by the irrational
number √2. Rational approximation of line length provides only
a limited solution, because the unit step must be the smallest common
1
1
√2
denominator of all line lengths in the modeled structure. Consequently,
the representation of a simple plant module, such as an internode, may
require a large number of symbols. The same argument applies to angles.
Problems become even more pronounced while simulating changes
to the modeled structure over time, since some growth functions cannot
be expressed conveniently using L-systems. Generally, it is difficult
1.10. Parametric L-systems 41
to capture continuous phenomena, since the obvious technique of discretizing
continuous values may require a large number of quantization
levels, yielding L-systems with hundreds of symbols and productions.
Consequently, model specification becomes difficult, and the mathematical
beauty of L-systems is lost.
In order to solve similar problems, Lindenmayer proposed that numerical
parameters be associated with L-system symbols [83]. He illustrated
this idea by referring to the continuous development of branching
structures and diffusion of chemical compounds in a nonbranching filament
of Anabaena catenula.
The following is an example of its application:
starting string: A
p1: A F(1)[+A][-A]
P2: F(s) F(s*R)
which I think is basically trying to say
F(s) = move forwar a step of length s > 0.
Thanks again,
Mateo…
finite element line with
start point
end point
id
cross-section (optional)
local coordinate system (optional)
some property (optional)
some other property (optional)
additional settings (optional)
etc
Now in 99% of the cases, users will only specify the first 4 parameters and leave the others blank. I'm not a huge fan of to many inputs so to clean up the canvas/components, I thought about exposing the optional parameters only upon zooming in on the component.
So far I've sometimes added a secondary component with more inputs to specify a list of additional settings (similar to the "settings" panel that exists/existed in Kangaroo), but this I find rather messy.
Alternatively I guess I could quite happily live with exposing the additional parameters at the click of a button. This I can do with the ZUI as it is written? I still need to get my head round what's what in this happy world of the canvas' third dimension...
…
e the meaning or posting "ready" (kinda) solutions in response to something asked in the code related forum? (that could be rather ridiculous: Greetings code freaks: a user - that you've never heard of - asked this and I did that ... utterly ridiculous).
Now .. if a request comes from a novice either a component based solution or a freaky one ... well ... they have a very limited usage (if any usage at all) on a per se basis: because only time combined with a certain experience could yield the required ability to deal with issues before happening.
On the other hand ...to tell you the truth I believe that's far easier for a novice to get some "basic" programming skills and deal with his/her issues (who are in 99% of cases data management related ones) than to attack them via components.
On the other hand I believe that in the future (not the distant one) ... anyone involved in this ugly business AND not speaking some freaky language he could be rated as class D citizen (brave new world: here we are).
But that's a highly personal opinion (extreme to the max, as usual, he he).
PS: I don't think that the majority of posts here come from novices (yesterday a fellow user asked a very challenging thing: the one with the max rectangle).
take care …
u are posting in the wrong place.
99% of the posted questions in the general discussion forum are from novice grasshopper users who have lack of very basic knowledge.
In my opinion, the best response to these posts is providing the simplest (easiest to understand) solution to the problem, plus an explanation of why the definition wasn't working, plus some suggested fields of study.
On the other hand, you provide a very fancy solution, which gets the job done (and usually a bunch of other jobs as well), but there is 0% chance it will be comprehended or further developed by the OP...
This is the typical giving_fish_VS_teaching_how_to_fish debate.
As for the "please ignore me if you enjoy being primitive" argument, I am afraid it is not as simple as that. A post with 3-4 replies (which, in this case, would be 3 subsequent versions of your solution, plus an awkward "ehm, tyvm" from the OP) has a great chance of going unnoticed by anyone who could provide a gh solution...
And finally I have to point out that the right place for coding discussion is just a doorstep away.
cheers,
a not-pissed-off co-member of this forum …
Added by nikos tzar at 8:29am on February 15, 2015
ostly via C# because ... er ... the remaining 99% (how to do some real-life canopy and/or a real-life truss out of the relaxed line graph) is only doable via code - no ExoW/IL (so ... the 1% is indeed doable).
At first ... just double click the Kangaroo1 engine, halt the simulation AND ONLY THEN redirect the resulting line list to the ExoW/IL. As delivered neither is active.
Note: ExoW and/or IntraLattice MAY or MAY NOT work (each one has his own issues, but ExoW despite the glitches yields way better looking liquid stuff). So the liquid root may or may not be the holly grail that you expect (life sucks).
Note: As is delivered this only does a liquid node load bearing structure (ideal for Planet Utopia). Paint the thing black, do some proper pavement, populate with birds of pray, wait for the envelope def (that's freaky), put humans inside, lock the doors > massacre.
…