h, and using the BScale and BDistance are creating havoc somehow too. I've simplified first, and used the Kangaroo Frames component along with setting internal iterations, to make MeshMachine act like a normal component, along with releasing the FixC and FixV. The FixV didn't make any sense anyway. I've also set Pull to 0 to speed it up during testing, since much less calculation is involved to just let the meshes collapse, prevented from disappearing altogether by using a mere 15 iterations.
Also, your breps are open so that allows much more chaos and then collapse, though they did manage to close themselves too at times. Here is closed breps with a full 45 iterations:
So now that it's working, lets re-Fix the curves, and the problem arises that there is an extra seam line that is getting fixed too, running along the cylinder, stopping the mesh from pulling tight under tension wherever a vertex happens to be near that line:
So lets grab only the naked edge curves instead:
And what happens if we lose the end caps, now that we don't have an extra line skewing the result?:
There is no real curvature differences since it's not a curvy brep so the Adapt at full 1 setting has little to do. Now what does the BScale and BDist do? Nothing! Why? Your scale is out of whack, 99 mm high cylinders but only a falloff maximum of about 5, so let's make the falloff be 25 instead, but I must restore the end caps or the meshes collapse away for some reason and freezes Rhino for a minute or so the first time I try it:
It's a start.
If I intersect the cylinders, nothing changes, since they are being treated as separate runs. MeshMachine outputs a sequence of two outputs though, due to Frames being set to a bare minimum of 2 needed to get it to work, so I filter out the original run, which is just the unmodified initial mesh it creates.
The lesson so far is that closed meshes are much less prone to collapse and glitches leading to screw ups.
A Boolean union of the cylinders is when it gets funner, here show with and without the fixed curves that seem to define boundaries too where really there are just polysurface edges:
…
er, i hae drawn a quck sketch. Different curves in blue and orange colour. i have marked on my sketch which is a a non-planar surface.
At the moment, i have modeled this with NURBS curve component (component without Knots & Weights). I have set 5 to its 'P' intput (I'm going to reduce it to 3). Each point having 3 parameters X, Y & X axis. I have set my slider from -100mm to 100mm range. It is a closed curve.
If i just loft it, i get random results which i donot want. I can get a planar surface if i set Z parameter to zero. But how do i get a non planar and preferably a burbs surface?
the curves are very important to this projects. as Whole form is dependent on these curves.
Your tips will be highly appreciated. If you have different way of modelling it, I'm open to suggestion too.
cheers,
aB…
and perpframes
3) Ellipse on perframes
4) Series + Move + Series + Scale + Series + rotate (to create generations)
5) Divide curve (ellipse) + Dispatch only seleced points + join those points on ellipse using Intercurve + Divide the resulting intercurve
6) List items (I used list items 4 times, you could do as many). For 'i' parameter in list item i used slider to create generations. depending upon your definition, at this stage you might have to flatten your list output
7) joint the points you get from list output to form another intercurve + repeat that for all items.
8) Loft the curve
9) to form fenestrations, i again used rhino closed curves.
8) Project curve onto surface + copy trim + surface to mesh + mesh thickening from WB.
Hope this helps
Cheers
aB
…
his project. Attached is my latest script. It seems to work for all points & directions of gravity except when the points are at equal height (in the reference plane the script creates, not in the world space). In other words, when the vector from A to B is perpendicular to the gravity vector, it doesn't work. It's totally due to the formulas used to solve for distance (see script), but I haven't found a way to fix it to make it work. Kudos to anyone that can help me figure it out!
Other notes: Required input: Point A, Point B, Gravity vector, and desired Height and/or desired chain/arch Length. Cool trick: when inputting both Height and Length, it recalculates the end point (point B) with those desired parameters, and the end point lies along the AB vector. Also, the "x" output shows either the found height, length, or distance (when both height & length are input), and "newPl" just shows the reference plane used to make calculations easier.
Cheers…
Added by Will McElwain at 11:52pm on January 18, 2014
med that a 1000 lux measurement for a particular hour on a workplane grid point will indicate a illuminance from direct sun at that point. If I remember correctly, these simulations are to be run without the presence of any shading devices.
From an ASE calculation perspective, there are several shortcomings within Daysim (as it exists right now). The daylight coefficient method, which Daysim employs, calculates illuminance by dividing the sky into discrete patches. (http://naturalfrequency.com/wiki/sky-subdivision) For a clear sky with sun, the luminance from sun is accounted for by approximating the position of sun into 3 (as far as I know) patches. That in turn leads to an incorrect estimation of both position and luminance contribution of the sun.
Anyways, as I wrote in the begining, in my opinion the closest you'd get to calculating ASE from daysim right now would be running an annual daylighting calculation with Honeybee by setting ambient bounces as zero. A better approach, in case you are not trying to comply with something like leed v4, would be to do a DGP analysis as Chris mentioned in his post.
…
i projected my surface on XY plane, created voronoi curves on the planar surface and re-project / map the curves onto the subject model.
However, i'm not getting a desired result.
can any-1 please help me. or even show me a different way to model it via GH? I donot want to use rhino objects.
I have attached my initial sketch, GH and Rhino files.
Hope to find some solution so I could move forward :-(
Moreover, I could not convert the initial non-planar curves into surface hence I converted them into Mesh (thanks to 'Brian Harms' for helping me out). However, the protruding edges of the mesh is not a smooth NURB curve, it forms kind of vertices of a polygon. Any way to smoothen / fillet it? Will it affect when i commence 3D printing?
Regards,
aB…
/ interest to some of you. I'm attempting to generate "bricks" along an arc, the span of the arc is known (Line AB), as is the desired brick edge length (shown as chords on the dotted circle). Im am essentially trying to solve for the diameter of the dotted circle and its center point (C). The variables within the grasshopper script would be span (X), chord Length (Y) and number of segments to the arch (N). Lacking the radius or central angle means that Im unable to solve this using my limited knowledge of Trig.
I guess the key issue here is that chord length and number is driving the radius of the arc / circle. Hence why Im not simply using the divide curve tool.
Any input members might have would be fantastic and I'd be very happy to share the resulting file.
Thank you!
…
Added by Robert Harvey at 11:24am on November 20, 2012
join site boundary curves with voronoi curves so that voronoi curves at the edges becomes a closed polygon?
2)I want to create a line between voronoi curve control points and voronoi cell centroid points, such that each 2D voronoi cell is broken down into a sets of triangles. Please refer attached sketch.
3) Then How do i project voronoi curves along with triangl curves onto a vaulted roof?.
4) lastly, i want to give some thickness to those curve. i.e. the curves basically are structural beams of the roof. with my definition pipe command does not work very well i.e. pipes intersect and crossover at each vertices, which is not my intention.
attached is a sketch and my definition.
Can any1 help me with any of the 4 problems?
Thank you very much
AB…
g a problem though when trying to set a daylight simulation with some determined radiance parameters. Here's the problem: After many tries I think I found out that setting -ab = 6 and at the same time -aa = .05 creates some sort of problem, because when I try to do so My PC blocks for several minutes, without letting me manually end processes from taskmanager, and when I'm able again to enter grasshopper, i get the following error:
"Solution exception:index out of range: 0"
Does this really depends on the parameters and values I found out or is it related to something else? Is the problem relative to the structure of HoneyBee or is it just relative to my specific case (and maybe PC)? Is it possible to solve it, and if yes, how?
Atteched you find my rhino model and my grasshopper file.
Thanks in advance for your help and again many compliments!
Luigi…
robablemente las uniones son forzadas/rotadas levemente para que calcen.
Probablemente se puede variar el angulo de 90° entre cada pieza a un angulo que permita crear el octagono perfecto, pero habría dos posibilidades de giro entre cada pieza.
Tal vez el problema hay que repensarlo desde el octagono/poliedro que forman los triangulos en el modelo y luego generar los triangulos.
Bueno aca mi definicion y algunos comentarios:
- Hoopsnake pide una condicion inicial que solo la utiliza en la primera iteracion (input S).
- Luego hay que definir el algoritmo reiterativo/recursivo que es toda la parte de abajo. Como input se utiliza el output S de hoopsnake (en la primera iteracion es la misma informacion que ingresaste en S).
El resultado de este algoritmo/proceso vuelve a ingresar a hoopsnake en el input D para una nueva iteración.
- El output H es el historial de toda la geometria/datos procesados en las iteraciones.
Ahora te explico el algoritmo:
- Se toma el triangulo y se sacan los puntos en las esquinas.
- Se revisa si los puntos estan contenidos en otro triangulo existente y hago cull para dejar los libres (ocupo el output H del hoopsnake para ver los triangulos de las iteraciones anteriores). En la primera iteracion hago un bypass para dejar todos los puntos iniciales libres (ya que no hay historial en el hoopsnake).
- La parte de abajo es para elegir una de las dos opciones max disponibles (tu comentaste arriba que habia tres opciones... en realidad son tres opciones en la inicial, luego son solo dos opciones. No se que va a pasar si se se completa el octagono, teoricamente habría solo 1 opcion disponible, pero no pude reproducirlo por el problema geometrico).
A modo de ejemplo, en la imagen le deje todas las opciones disponibles y conecte directamente (dos para el triangulo) para tratar de generar los octagonos.
- La parte final es simple, desde el centro del triangulo se genera una linea hacia las opciones disponibles para generar un plano perpendicular para la simetria y luego se rota en 90° (que creo debería ser otro angulo). Puedes mover el slider del plano perpendicular para generar la interseccion deseada en los triangulos (0.5 para interseccion completa).
Como ya te indicaron, yo tampoco hice el tema de las areas.. pero deberia ser simple en mi definición: Calculas el area del output H (triangulos), aplicas flatten, mass addition y si el numero resultante es mayor al area de la placa que quieres, debería generar un valor falso que va en el input B de hoopsnake.
Sorry que no haya ocupado tu definicion, pero ocupe un grasshopper antiguo y ademas ya había solucionado un problema similar con un alumno el semestre pasado, asi que realicé lo que me acordaba :D
Saludos y suerte!
…