ength is applied to particle b, and the same vector multiplied by -2*BendStrength is applied to a and c
Hope that helps. I was thinking of changing this input slightly for the next Kangaroo release, because I realize it can be a pain if you want bending stiffness of a curve to be independent of the number of points used, but I'll make sure to clarify any changes when I do update this.
…
an that HashCodes well ... since they are "unique" per item (even if this - for the one reason or the other - is created at the same location with that) I barely can see how one can use them in order to get rid if "equal" items (Lines in this occasion).
On the other hand ... well ... using HashSets sampling the Line center and testing length and direction ... well ... this works but why bother? > if you are not doing business with code (thus you need this "check" internally) > use the Kangaroo1 component.
That said the topic of "equality" is rather huge and most people are confusing a lot of things on that matter: for instance a point not equal to another ... well ... that's rather simple but a brep "not equal" with some else ... this is not that easy (if it's solvable).…
te some cut sheets, but not to optmize material, rather define some cut lines. Everything that I am cutting is made of planar wood elements, but there are very specific geometries (mostly straight lines) and I have to put tolerances and radiasas at the corners in order to cut on the cnc mill. Spending time to figure out how to automate is necessary, but I am stuck!
One thing the definition is doing is taking my brep modeled components in rhino and makking them into 2d close curves and laying them side by side. It works...not ideal as its not layed out in a sheet, but that is not the most important part.
Another particular problem is that you will see some notches in the curves, which other pieces will slip into, so different slots need different specific offsets (making them larger) as a toelrance to allow for material play. This I don't even know how to set up so maybe it will just have to wait.
THE MAIN QUESTION, and super important would be, LIFESAVER:
At all 'inward' corners...which I think will always mean concave corners (most are 90 degrees, but are within to sides, instead of a corner sticking out). I'm sure its obviousy, but the reason being the outward corners a circular dril bit can cut, but inward ones need an arc profile extended beyond where the corner of the other piece will fit into. The drill bit i am using is 6mm, so 6mm diamters arcs is what i'm working with.
I have managed to put such an arc at every vertices of each cut piece. The problem being some stick outward isntead of cutting into the piece. So each one needs to be orieneted correctly. Ideally they would also only draw into inward corners, but I can always delete them out. I think maybe I am missing a more logical mathematical way of defining?
For these geometries it is not very important which side the half circle arc in on in the inward corners, but I also have some geometries that I will have to control where the circles face according to the rest of the cut piece.
The cutouts in the middle of the pieces that are curves do not need such corners obviously.
The picture is an example drawn
I hope this isn't too specific and long. in general though automating fabrication, and controling pracitcal math and orientation problems like this is itnersting to me!
THANKS…
perienced with grasshopper, but so far I've managed to combine the following:
Giulio Piacentino's "Catenary arch from height" script
Pirouz Nourian's "Mobius" script (Obtained from a friend)
End Result:
Here's where I'm stuck: I want the mobius twist to revolve around the midpoint of the arch, but the script uses the input values to determine the endpoints, resulting in a weird sinuous shape when viewed from above. Also, the secondary end points (generated by the mobius script, determining the width of the surface) are generated by default along the z axis, resulting in an arch that only touches the "ground" at two points. I attempted to work around this issue by trying to force the zHeight parameter to correspond with the y axis (thus rotating the arch 90 degrees so it would lay "flat"), but the script interprets the third point as a value and not as an actual point to bisect. I thought this might be an issue with the C# component that I obtained from Giulio Piacentino's script, so I attempted to tinker around with the source code. Unfortunately, I'm not fluent in C# so I only managed to mess everything up (I've since recovered the code from the cache). Anybody got some ideas? -BC …
" (idiomatic) and easy way of doing things.So here come some basic questions:
Is there a way to create custom components by grouping an existing sub-network together? I'm looking for a way to re-use parts of a program (something similar to subroutines), and to make the network look less cluttered. I found that it is possible to group components (ctrl-g), but this still displays them as separate blocks (too much clutter), and provides no way to re-use a sub-network in such a way that if it is modified in one place, all it's instances (all the places where it is re-used) also get modified.
Is there a component that does nothing, just passes a signal through? Suppose I need to connect block A to blocks B1, B2, B3 (all three get the same input). Then I change my mind, and I decide to connect block C to these three, not A. In this case it will be necessary to change three connections, not just one. I'm looking for an easy way to do this by a single rewiring, not three. (This came up in a practical situation).
Finally, a related question: is there a component that acts as a switch, so I can choose which signal it passes through out of a possible set of choices? For example, suppose that a set of objects can be coloured based on a number of different properties (size, positions, rotation, etc.) I'm looking for a way to switch between these very easily, without the need to do much rewiring.
Thank you in advance for any replies / useful comments, even general ones on how to easily structure a large Grasshopper program/network.…
see in my bottom post image there is only one isocurve showing in U and V.
In Grasshopper there's no surface rebuild? Well, the same old Grasshopper Patch command will let you specify spans I guess, to make a surface from a planar curve, but it won't work for things with holes since they will just fill in!
You can recreate a surface painfully by untrimming, adding many UV points, rebuilding from those points, then retrimming with the original surface info, but the retrimming simply fails.
If you make a planar surface from a curve in Rhino, you end up with utterly no point editability:
No wonder my CreatePatch tests were a failure. The starting surface could not be distorted except in the extreme case of moving four corner points!
I have no idea how to successfully rebuild a surface akin to the Rhino rebuild command. It's great to be able to prototype in Grasshopper, but with Python I can rebuild easily ( http://4.rhino3d.com/5/rhinocommon/?topic=html/M_Rhino_Geometry_Surface_Rebuild.htm ;), so I guess I should start a collection, like peter, of little script components for prototyping with.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:18am on February 26, 2016
Simpsons episode were Bart goes into a mall and in the time he goes in and out of a shop all others have been turned into Starbucks.
I personally don't like it but you can't say they are crushing all competitors because, as far as i know, all owners of those software packages voluntarily sold their property for a good price. I would actually be more worried that an antitrust lawsuit was filed against Autodesk.
For example, this is what happened with Rockefeller's Standard Oil:
The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.[32]
The court argued, in essence, that Standard Oil was a "large" company with many divisions, and if those divisions were in reality separate companies, there would be more competition. The court made no mention at all of the industry's economic performance; of supposed predatory pricing; of whether industry output had been restrained, as monopoly theory holds; or of any other economic factors relevant to determining harm to consumers. The mere fact that Standard Oil had organized some thirty separate divisions under one consolidated management structure (a trust) was sufficient reason to label it a monopoly and force the company to break up into a number of smaller units.
To economists, "predatory pricing" is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity, either.
In other words, the organizational structure that was responsible for the company's great efficiencies and decades-long price cutting and product improving was seriously damaged. Standard Oil became much less efficient as a result, to the benefit of its less efficient rivals and to the detriment of consumers.
From: http://mises.org/daily/2317
(Beware, that site is very ideologically charged)…