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
akes the linear regression of the Schroeder integral over 30 dB worth of decay. Whether it is T-15 or T-30, they all seek to estimate the RT, which is always always the time it takes for sound to decay 60 decibels.
The website has benchmarks, for your reference. You can find them under the 'Pachyderm' drop down menu, under 'Benchmarks'.
Your model may well require millions of rays to be accurate. It sounds like a very large space. I'm sorry if that is an unpleasant answer. Sometimes it does help to have a computer with more cores to help with this. I have gotten up to 90% processor usage on a 12 core machine before.
Arthur…
hat differ in shapes, sizes and height the facade would be a mess. Some spaces need some light while other can't have any. I would like to have full freedom of creation inside the building, to make it as functional as possible. Thats why i decided the parametric "skin" solution would be best. Since the location has industrial past (factories made of brick) i decided that brick would give interesting result.
I tried creating the definition on my own but since i lack skill in GH i got some problems (especially multiplication of bricks and the diffrence between each "level" (half a brick on y axis) caused problems for me.
I post my simple sketch explaining the idea of definition i would like to create (sorry about quality):
1 - Brep - I would like to use 25x12x6cm (classic brick) but as well experiment with diffrent shapes - like the one on the right with hole inside - that would give more light. Thats why i think the best solution would be using brep for this definition.
2- Multiplication - biggest problem for me - I don't know how tall the wall would be, what will be the final shape of Brep (brick) and that's why i would like to manipulate this with sliders as well. All the walls are flat (maybe it would be easier to use surface?). As i managed to multiply the bricks easy way i don't know how to gain control over height of the wall - for example that it is 30 bricks high, but has each second row moved on x axis by the distance of 1/2 brick. I tried using Series but with no success. Could you help me with that please?
3 - Rotation - i would like to use image sampler for that so i can "paint" where i want more sun and where i dont need it at all (black and white). The rotation has to be limited to 180 degrees as well. Obviously i didn't get here yet, but i never used image sampler so if you could give me some advice how to use component and how to create such images i would be really grateful.
4 - More of a concept thing - since the connection angles differ from 90 degrees i will have to figure out how to connect the parts of the wall at sides ;).
I would like to ask you for help with the defintion, since i am totally stuck at step 2. I post what i came up with so far. Thank you for your time and help!
PS. I post an image that is pretty similar to one of options i would like to check for my building.
…
luppo del rapporto tra informazione e geometria. Si lavorerà su sistemi ad involucro in condizioni specifiche e i partecipanti impareranno a costruire e sviluppare strutture di dati parametrici per informare geometrie ‘data-driven’ ed estrarre le informazioni rilevanti da tali modelli per il processo di costruzione.
Tutors: Arch. Andrea Graziano (Co-de-iT) Arch. Salvo Pappalardo (Studio AION_architecture)
Informazioni complete e iscrizioni...
…
writing a solar-angle component, but I've never gotten around to that.
Dates are stored as 64-bit integers. Basically they count Ticks (1 tick = 100 nanoseconds, or 1 second = 10 million ticks) since midnight, January 1st, 1 AD. Formatting comes into play only when the time is represented as a String.
A wide variety of formatting flags is possible Dates, unfortunately the Grasshopper Expression language doesn't support the DateTime type, so it gets converted to Strings automatically. This makes formatting dates and times impossible. I'll probably get around to adding the type at some point, or maybe I'll make a dedicated DateTime formatter component (less work, but also less flexible).
I also do my best to interpret any string that might represent a date or a time:
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
catch-all phrases that pick up all of the rest of it: you have inputs, algorithms, and outputs.
It sounds like you don't necessarily want to wade into the miasma of academic reflection on the terminology, but in case you're willing to hold your nose and brave it there is some fairly interesting stuff out there. Nick's point about computation versus computerization is pretty reflective of a common mode of thinking about it. AD published a book edited by Sean Ahlquist and Achim Menges a couple years back called "Computational Design Thinking" and their introduction lays out a compelling argument for the distinction. Likewise Philip Galanter's paper "What is Generative Art? Complexity Theory as a Context for Art Theory" is a good read.
I mean, ultimately it's about semantics. If you're worried about "real, accurate meaning" the reality is you're going to have to justify the boundaries of your own definition one way or another. David is rather a wry literalist who I suspect enjoys taking the piss out of academics, particularly when they're all puffed up (and really, every event is a form of computation if you want to go there). But usage counts, and there's a growing body of work staking claim to these terms, so it's better to know how and why if you even want to ask the question.…
Added by David Stasiuk at 2:01pm on November 28, 2013
Excellent knowledge of Rhino and Adobe Creative Suite (Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign)
* Experience in Revit is preferred * Knowledge of Grasshopper is a plus
* Excellent communication and expression skills, fluency in spoken and written English is a must
* Good team player
Please apply with the official LAVA application manager and refer to this ad:
https://lava.poolarserver.com/quicklink/pageApplicationUpload.aspx
…
t the elements I used CreateHBsrfs and I added "Adiabatic" in the EPBC input. Since the EnergyPlus results weren't what I expected, I checked the idf file and I discovered none of the element is adiabatic. Furthermore, the simulation doesn't use the materials I set up for the not-adiabatic wall.
I even tryed with MakeAdiabatic, MakeAdiabaticbyname and MakeAdiabaticbytype. With the first and second the problem is still the same. With MakeAdiabaticbyType, if I change one wall type in the CreateHBsrfs, it still remains the same type in EnergyPlus, so it makes all the walls adiabatic. Is there something I can do? I attach the GH file Thanks in advance Lisa…
The type of recipe appears to be related to the problem, because de error desolves when I connect the component to a different recipe.
A screenshot of the complete error message is in the attachment.
Error text:
0. Annual climate-based analysis1. The component is checking ad, as, ar and aa values. This is just to make sure that the results are accurate enough.2. Good to go!3. Current working directory is set to: c:\ladybug\unnamed\annualSimulation\4. Rotating the scene for 41 degrees5. Runtime error (TypeErrorException): unsupported operand type(s) for +=: 'str' and 'bool'6. Traceback: line 6509, in transform, "<string>" line 1665, in writeRADAndMaterialFiles, "<string>" line 193, in main, "<string>" line 258, in script
Many thanks in advance…