ut options can only be activated or deactivated, there is no option to feed them an input, so in order to develop this option as you are sugesting the programers would have to come around this problem by creating some kind of way to feed an integer to this output option(I don't have a clue how hard this can be) whereas the way I had sugested the shift paths output option would not need an input and would simply work with the default -1 (my bad on the previous posts) which as I said is how I need it to be 99% of the time, also in this way no typing would be needed to access this function, just a right click to enter output options and a left click to select shift paths would do the trick, as usual for other output options. This would be comfortable, it would help to manage and transform data more easily and speed up the workflow a bit. …
rce of power.
A fortified emplacement for heavy guns.
Synonyms
accumulator
And use component:
com·po·nent
/kəmˈpōnənt/
Noun
A part or element of a larger whole, esp. a part of a machine or vehicle.
Adjective
Constituting part of a larger whole; constituent.
Synonyms
noun.
constituent - element - ingredient - part
adjective.
constituent - constitutive
…
n to finding a concave contour polyline (which is in general what you need). In your case each contour section contains a series of points of which you do not know the order and you need to sort them so that by connecting them you find the contour. This is fairly easy to do when the contour is convex (basically you find the average point then calculate the vectors from the average to the points and sort the vectors by angle - sorting the points by the same angle gives you the right order for the contour), but generally impossible to find uniquely when the contour is concave (PS: convex means that, for ANY 2 points inside the figure, a straight line connecting them doesn't intersect with the border curve - i.e. circles, ellipses, rectangles, triangles - concave shapes are a star, a crescent moon, an arrow, a boomerang, etc.).
The problem goes like this: given a generic list of points:
Each of these configurations for a perimeter equally fits the above:
Laurent already went for another possible solution, the stochastic approach (by subdividing the connecting lines), I slightly adjusted a few things over his solution:
namely, I added a rounding option to adjust for some weird tolerance issues (some points that should be at Y=80 were at Y=79.99998 or something) and a more straightforward solution to group them by section plane using sets logic. This, coupled with alpha shape, gives a quite good approach, still very coarse in terms of results but that depends on the sampling resolution of the field (i.e. number of height sections in which you calculate the metaballs) and sampling length of the connecting lines.
Definition attached.…
Diffraction , I left it, how it is.
For the unusual issues that comes in the image source component, so, is it something strange? But, I still have the same issues when I sets any integer component (single or multiple) in the “reflection order” of the image source component, in the “image source order” in the ray tracing component, and again, when I connect the output “Direct sound data” of Direct Sound component in the Energy Time Curve.
Do I wrong something with the integer component? I used it already in the first parts, for sets “grasshopper layers”, in the “Scene” component, but here it works. Should I start with a new file?
For the multi-object optimization, thank you for all suggestions. Yes, I red PHD thesis work of Tomas Mendez and the article “ EDT, C80 and G Driven Auditorium design” and still others. Thank you to all these articles, I decided where to focus my thesis.
I understand the potential of Multi-object optimization, and problems that I can finding without using it. Actually, in the beginning of my thesis, I tried to jet in contact with the Politecnico di Torino, but was not easy because I’m not a Politecnico student.
Here, in University of Florence (Building engineering), there isn’t a department or someone that is already familiar with these field of study, so, as you can image, for design my thesis, I can confide on online resources. So far, my Professor suggest me to begin with a Nonlinear Global optimization like Galapagos, and only after see the multi-object. In this way, step by step if something doesn’t work is easier to understand way and where something is going wrong: if are problems due to the setting of the programs, because we are not practical about these, or if there is a wrong in the simulations or in the algorithm and ect.
Do you think is a good way for go on?
Thank you very much,
Kind Regards
Giulia
…
t in place). Wooden things are made (one thing anyway, but the rest are piece of cake). Panels rotate now (in real time, don't disable the block placer at least as regards the rotation angle). Note: turn OFF Levels that disturb you (like the one related with Axis).
Bad news: the panel rotation policy sucks (because the panels are initially designed in order "to click" each other). Clash issues within the "click areas" appear as well related with the side covers (easy fix: I'll do some redesign ASAP). More soon.
Ugly news: regarding controlling the whole topology (i.e. the fully parametric deployment of ALL beamAxis Curves (edit C# ) ) ... well that's challenging because GH is not designed having in mind individual control of items in collections (Lists, Trees etc). 99% of the posted cases/questions/examples that I see here are cases where people are applying some kind of "global" logic - like using some attractors or some other kind of stuff. In this case (and in 99% of typical purely engineering cases, that's not good enough).
Anyway, It's doable but requires some re-thinking.
PS: Obviously this case address the other question of yours related with the vertical panels - the one that David R replied as well (but can Rhino "stretch" blocks in one direction? I'll investigate that one).
PS: of course the carriage (and the wheels) rotates with the panels as well (rather stupid) ... but that is fixed in V5 by using a far more elaborated block structure , he he
best, Peter…
these days resemble more to "optimized machines" than "good old brick walls with a roof".
Back to people:
If people starting their career as engineers are stuck/guided solely to the graphical way (like learning to drive a car with an auto-box: missing by 99% of what driving is all about) it could be quite a shock for them to adapt to the brave new world - or the animal farm (depends on the point of view). That said, the parametric way is in an infancy state: just wait a few years to taste first hand what really brave new world means (wait for the next CATIA [in smoke phase at present time] for instance: a bit science fiction by current standards).
If people are already working as members of pro teams in some practice ... well ... it's hard to imagine any benefit of components VS code (especially regarding team work, optimization, alternatives, updates/upgrades, common development language platform - having in mind many other CAD/MCAD apps etc etc etc). For instance ... just consider including that humble SolidWorks (C#) in your arsenal (and a lot of other apps).
On the other hand 99% of the whole parametric thing IS NOT some sort of idea (not a big deal: anyone can have a million ideas) ... it's the data management/handling itself (in our case: DataTrees, what else?). Find ANY pro who could suggest dealing with Trees via components instead of code (masochists excluded).
On the other hand what cryptic means it's a matter of personal view: for instance speaking Mandarin is indeed cryptic (at least to me, although I do some business there) but almost 2B others find that ... quite natural, he he.
Finally and most importantly: sampling some geometry to do some abstract thing and design a real-life building out of them ... well there's a colossal distance in complexity, meaning that theory and reality differ vastly.
But there's always the choice: if you want to chat with a mirror, don't listen to me.…
combination is nearly 0 (of course with 1 try). You have about 100 (?) dimensions... its just impossible to do it well. Even with billions of random genotypes for 1st generation.
Its like 1:googol (10^100) to succeed. If youll try and run it on your pc, youll probably consume all the energy in universe, and it will take longer time than our universe will exist.
Sorry :(
EDIT : As David wrote in his post - every added dimension results with almost half of "success ratio". So as with one slider you have e.g. 1:2 ratio of success, with 100 sliders you have :
1:633825300114114700748351602688 (2^99)
To somebody more familiar with math -> correct me if Iam wrong :)…
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.
…
l target) ... and redirect people towards the way that Quest3D (and others) does things. Export a 100K frame animation in 12.45 seconds anyone? he he.
On the other hand if Adobe could(?) resurrect(?) the dormant 3DPDF thing (what a stunning idea was that 10 years ago - left to die because that man ... censored due to politically correct reasons, he he). On the other hand, even mighty Israel (the brain behind CATIA) failed to deliver the Plan B (3d XML).
PS: An AEC thing is 1% idea(s) and 99% ugly/boring bureaucratic work. Never forget that if you judge AEC BIM software. But Rhino could kill the 3 giants in some sectors (i.e. AutoDesk, Bentley and Nemetschek ) provided that ... blah blah blah.
PS: All things considered (and including Generative Components) there's only one BIM AEC thing out there: AECOSim (but I'm a Bentley man, he he).…