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.…
frontare il tema della modellazione parametrica con Grasshopper. Questa plug-in di Rhino consente di progettare, confrontandosi con un contesto evolutivo, attraverso la comprensione e l'utilizzo di parametri e componenti che influenzano la rappresentazione e la rendono dinamica componendo algoritmi. Nel corso verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse.Le informazioni teoriche saranno fornite in maniera accelerata ma organica e contestuale agli argomenti elencati. Per massimizzare i risultati, le lezioni saranno accompagnate da piccole esercitazioni pratiche.Argomenti trattati:- Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio- Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica- Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow- Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati- Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici- Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi- Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling- Attrattori, image sampler- Data tree: gestione di dati complessiStrutturaIl corso ha una durata di 16 ore programmate nell'arco di 2 giornate con i seguenti orari: i giorni 28/07 e 29/07 dalle 10,00 alle 19,00 con pausa pranzo di un'ora.DestinatariIl corso è rivolto a tutti coloro che hanno buone conoscenze di Rhinoceros e vogliono affrontare i nuovi metodi di progettazione in maniera consapevole attraverso il linguaggio visual scripting proposto dal software Grasshopper.PrerequisitiPer affrontare il corso è richiesta una conoscenza di base del software Rhino attraverso esperienze teoriche e pratiche. I partecipanti dovranno venire muniti di proprio laptop e con software Rhinoceros 5 o Rhinocero 4 perfettamente funzionanti.AttestatoAlla fine del corso verrà rilasciata l’attestato di partecipazione ad un corso qualificato McNeel valido per l’ottenimento di crediti formativi universitari.LuogoLe lezioni si terranno presso lo studio il Pedone in Via Muggia 33, 00195 ROMA…
an symmetric spacing by remaping t(x).
I tried to use the GraphMapper with a parabolic distribution for t(x) and it almost right but still off.
(I am using half the domain to make sure I have a curve on the axis.)
How do I remap t(x) to get the right result?
Asking for help, please.
Thanks,
Phillip
…
If you were not there, you can email me and have me give you a written desk crit.
-The assignment due this week will focus in on one of your ideas and dig in deeper. Please compose a 24"x24" pdf of one final project idea including some of the following:
Specific grasshopper examples
Sketches
Images
Text defining your design limitations, variables, the project at large, and parametric qualities
Please name this LastName_FirstName_FinalProject_PartB.pdf and complete by Monday at 7:00 PM.
-There will be a more complete sheet in the upcoming weeks describing the final project, but here is a sneak peek:
Project Brief: Up until now, you have been using grasshopper to develop, analyze, and fabricate architectural ideas in a very controlled format. The final project is a chance to combine this knowledge with your own design intent and aspirations. The project will use specific deliverables to spur growth, but also allow for you, the designer, to do what you please within the following boundaries.
Requirements:
# open project# must be a design project # story of what you are designing and why you are using grasshopper - specific design intent# must have physical scale model # must have 24” x 36” board - made in Adobe InDesign or Photoshop # grasshopper definition image # 1 artistic rendering - any format - with scale figures # 5 iterations of your project must be presented # 1 diagram to visually describe your project # text describing project # process drawings - photos/sketches/models/other iterations# this is the bare minimum - to have an excellent project, one must go above and beyond these requirements# talk to me if you have out of the box ideas of presenting/ teams / etc...
That is all, have a good week!…
input orientation of the objects. I can see that you've already done this with Vec2pt. Doing it with a sun vector is a little easier, because you are working with one vector, not a bunch of different vectors. you probably know a lot of this already, but I wanted to write a comment that is helpful to anyone coming across the discussion, because it is a common design task.
To orient a bunch objects towards a sun vector:
1. you need a vector to represent the sun's rays. You can either use an existing definition from the web (definitely look at Ted Ngai's amazing work on this), or just make a single adjustable vector as a stand in. I've often simply made a vector using azimuth and altitude angles as inputs, since those are common ways of describing the location of the sun, and makes it easy to look up a sun angle and put it in to your definition.
2. assuming you have some vector to represent the sun's rays, make a plane that is perpendicular to this vector. But Why, Precisely?, you're already familiar with some of the quirks of making a plane perpendicular to a vector, just keep those quirks in mind.
3. next, create reference planes for your panels. If your panels are flat (i.e. planar) this is really simple, just make a list of their planes, using whatever you like (check planarity, evaluate surface, whatever). If your panels are not planar, then you need to decide on a plane you can make from each one that you would like to use as a reference plane. plane from 3 points might be a good method here.
4.take your single plane that is perpendicular to your single sun vector, and place it at the origins of all of your reference planes. Now you have a sun-oriented plane for each panel.
5. Using the orient component, input your reference planes as the reference planes, and input your sun-oriented planes as the target planes, and input your panels as the geometry to transform. You should now have a bunch of panels oriented to the sun vector.
6. In this method, I've assumed that you want your panels perpendicular to a solar vector, to face the vector, but if you want a different relationship to the sun vector, you just need to change the relationship of that single first sun-oriented plane to whatever relationship you would like to make.
One thing to think of when designing for sun angles is just that at any given point in time, for any given point on the earth's surface, the rays of the sun are basically parallel. the angle of these rays changes over time, but at any other time, the rays are still parallel to each other, and can therefore be described by a single vector for each moment in time.…
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?…
hat aren’t completely there. BIM will have to continue to evolve some more if their supporters want to get to realize the promise that still is. I can’t say much about PLM, but I would say that both BIM and PLM should be considered in future developments of GH and Rhino. David has said several times that some GH limitations regarding geometry and data structures (central to interoperability) are actually Rhino limitations. So, I wouldn’t put so much pressure on David for this, or at least I would distribute the pressure also on the core Rhino development team.
Talking about Rhino vs. GH geometry, there is one (1) wish I have: support for extrusion geometry. GH already inputs extrusion elements from Rhino, but they are converted to breps. Is not a bad thing per se. The problem is when you need to bake several breps that make the Rhino file to weight several hundred MB. When these breps are actually prismatic, extrusion-like solids, is a shame that they aren’t stored as Rhino V5’s extrusion geometry in a file of just a couple of MB (I overcame this once with an inelegant RhinoScript that wasn’t good for other people). This was one of RhinoBIM’s main arguments. We can develop a structural model made of I-beams in GH using the Extrude components. We should be able to bake them as extrusions. That would also work for urban models with thousands of prismatic massing buildings (e.g. extruded footprints). Even GH’s boxes are baked as breps! Baking boxes as extrusions could be practical for voxelated or Minecraft-like models.
(2) Collaborative network support. Maybe with worksession handling, or something that aloud project team members to work on a single definition or in external references or something alike. I know there is another Rhino limitation on this, but maybe clusters are already going in that direction?
And maybe on the plug-ins domain:
(3) Remote control panel that could be really “remote”, like from other computer or device. There is an old Android App for that, but is not only a matter of updating. I mean, it would be great to control a slider with the accelerometer of an Android phone, but to have that on an iPhone will require another development team. If GH could support networks, a remote counterpart of a RCP plug-in could be developed as a cross-platform web app. I don’t know if you can access accelerometer functionality through HTML5 already, but for now, asking a client (or an spectator or any stakeholder for that matter) to control your sliders from gestures of his/her own phone would be awesome (maybe Firefly will fill that hole?).
(4) GIS support. GH already imports .shp files. Meerkat can even access the database, but what about writing to shapefiles or generating our own with databases processed/generated in GH?
(5) SketchUp support. Not only starchitects and corporations are using GH in the AEC. There are a lot of small firms, freelancers and students interested. Most of them use SketchUp for 3D modeling (not CATIA, neither Revit). Yes, you can import/export .skp from Rhino, but if GH could support nested block at bake time (also mentioned by others), it could write .skp files with complex relations of blocks (that are called components in SketchUp) and nested groups, going beyond what Rhino can export.
(6) Read/Write other formats. There are some challenges with proprietary formats that are not completely supported by Rhino, but they’re still a lot of open formats that are relevant to the fields of GH users, like stl and ply for 3D-printing. It could be nice to write mesh colors to a ply for 3D-printing a colored prototype based on GH colors. There are others, like IGES, STEP, COLLADA, etc. and 2D, like svg, odg and pdf. Some of them could offer special formatting options like custom data that the format supports but nobody uses just because is impractical to access this from direct modeling environments (but not from visual programming).
--Ernesto…
been covered since 0051 (correct me if I'm wrong):
1) Shoot for the moon first -- "Control Panel Mode" which allows for advanced interface design. See Max/MSP for example of modal function. I spent a lot of time laying out control panels so they are nice for clients and team members to look at. I spend a lot of time disabling wire display and dragging sliders and panels and graphs around into nice little clusters. Could be something as simple as a mode that disables the view of all component handles, cleans up graph objects, sliders, etc. I know the Remote Control Panel has been requested over and over again since it disappeared, but honestly it wouldn't be much use to me unless it was a full blown customizable interface. In the meantime I'll stick to my own "Canvas Control Panel" methods. (See below...)
2) More control over graph objects. Right now the bar graph for instance automatically sets the lowest and highest value displayed. Would be nice to be able to set extents manually so that you can compare apples to apples on two different lists that have different extents. Also would love to force the bar graph to show all values along x axis, not just first and last. Same goes for showing the numbers of instances for each value. Now it only shows instance numbers in oddball cases. Would like to force them to show for statistical purposes. Love percentages, but usually I also want accurate tallies. I tend to use a member index sets to generate my own lists.
3) Color input for Vectors -- there are fakey fake workarounds but none that are as versatile as simply having a color input.
4) COLOR INPUT FOR TEXT TAGS -- sorry to yell... this one really frustrates me. I often build interactive feedback systems that involve a lot of different types of data, and it is difficult to convey that input when all text is red (or green when selected).
5) Ability to justify text tags using paragraph controls -- currently default is left-justified. Would like to be able to center text horizontally and vertically, among other things.
6) Ability for text tags to handle multi-line text. Not sure the best way to implement this, but often I find myself wanting to attach 3 items of information to a particular object, and I have to string it all together in one line. Would be great if I could insert a "^M" character that stands for carriage return and have that display as multiline text (used in conjunction with above justification controls).
7) More control over Text panels. Thank you for including justification options... but sadly now it begs the question for margin and header control. Text slammed up against the left edge is pretty unsightly. Moreover, if you have labeled a text box, the drop shadow from the title bar tends to overshadow the first line of text if you have Path display turned off. Would like to add some header space to fix the problem and create a cleaner look.
8) Easier access to text font size. Buried in a Special Font... menu. I want to be able to up up down down (left right left right select start) if you know what I mean.
I guess that's it for now... just the things on the top of my head in this category. Looking forward to installing the new release, have to wait until this major project is over though.
Cheers,
Marc
…
mment%3A1637953
First of all, the invalid Rhino license as seen previously has been removed, and the correct educational license we have is re-installed for this test.
The re-appearing issue is that RAM usage spikes once GH is open in Rhino. It seems that this happens when a series of large GH project files incrementally saved are stored in the same folder. Moving those previously saved large project files to a new folder seems to be able to solve this issue.
The images below explains the issue and the hypothetical solution:
1. A series of GH files were incrementally saved in the same folder previously, and the last few GH files are the ones opened most recently:
2. The total RAM usage is at the normal 5GB level once Rhino is open:
3. Once GH is open, the RAM usage spikes, and the it becomes very slow to maneuver the GH window before even opening any one of those GH files:
4. Once GH and Rhino are closed, the RAM usage drop to the previous level before the GH interface was open:
5. Now, all the incrementally saved GH files are moved to a new folder "wip" except the last one, i.e. for the last GH file, there is no other previous GH files in the same location:
6. Now, if we open GH, there is no sudden increase of RAM usage, and the 3x3 thumbnails on the GH canvas shows "missing" as those previously opened GH files are no longer in the same location as they were before:
I understand that David mentioned that the thumbnails for previously opened GH files on GH canvas will not take much RAM. Nevertheless, I'm still not sure what is causing the increase of RAM usage and slowdown of GH interface. Relocating the large project files previously saved in the same folder as the current GH file seems to be able to make this issue go away, for unknown reason ...
Appreciate if anybody experiencing similar issue can help to check if this solution works.
Thank you.
…
mp; fabrication and construction into a new era of architecture.
Register HERE
We follow three lines of thought to translate structural design in material fabrication. The first ultra lightweight, rethinking shape and material, the second dealing with same single material components, aggregated within a network, working with directionality of the elements and their connections to perform stability and for the third we will rethink definition of the brick.
Our Translations will be designed, analysed and presented in both digital and physical prototypes; from table top models, to 2m high structures.
The use of Grasshopper, Karamba and Digital Fabrication tools drive our evolutions of design. Structural design allows us to play with the type of forces in elements, orientation, force flow, geometry, restraints and connection. We use this structural behaviour to inform the search for new links between materiality, form and construction, progressing towards a unique relationship of structure, construction and fabrication.
Our Translations will be presented, through digital and physical prototyping showcasing the process of linking digital and physical inputs as a continuous feedback loop, rethinking structural design and material fabrication.
…