ese seem to have one issue which I need to be addressed for my application.
The grids which are produced using the methods on here follow the surface and tend to be equally spaced in two dimensions. What I need is to create a grid which keeps the distance between the path lines equal whether the angle between the lines is 90 of 45 degrees. At the moment the grids act a bit like contours on an OS map but they bunch up in the lower parts of the curves and spread out in higher parts.
Below is a picture of what I produce via grasshopper so far but using a grid formula from elsewhere on the forums along with Rhino to connect up the paths. In this example they seem equally spaced but they differ by anywhere between 0.755mm and 0.785mm which if scaled up would be a problem.
Any Ideas how to help me split the surface up equally in all dimensions, meaning that if I were to sweep the tool path with a circle radius of half the distance between the lines/rails, there would be no gap between the beads/filaments?
I appreciate any help or advice hugely.
Philip
…
st between those two applications. But as soon as every frame is re-calculated I noticed that intersection function is very slow. It is actually so slow, that maximum number of polygons to play with is only 10 or less.
Could you help me to find a faster solution for my script?
calculation of intersection lines;
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
import ghpythonlib.components as ghcompimport rhinoscriptsyntax as rsdef ctr(crv): pts = ghcomp.Explode(crv)[1] pts = ghcomp.CullDuplicates(pts,0.001)[0] return ghcomp.Average(pts)pts = []lines = []ctr_c1 = ctr(C1)for crv in C2: if ctr(crv) != ctr_c1: int = ghcomp.CurveXCurve(C1, crv)[0] if int: [pts.append(x) for x in int] lines.append(rs.AddLine(int[0],int[1]))
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The overall description of the script:
a)Processing+ghowl is used for moving objects and physics
b)python script (slowest part) calculates intersection lines
c)intersected parts of polygons are rotated in 90 degrees.
I have attached grasshopper and processing files. (processing is not necessary to test the script)
Thank you in advance,
Pereas.
…
width of the other letter
find the intersecting shape with Solid Intersection
re-orient final shape
This process sometimes breaks when a letter has one or more "holes" in it (eg: B, O, R). When this happens, the Solid Intersection component experiences an error and says "Boolean intersection set is empty". I don't know what that means.
I have tried the quick-fixes of flattening and grafting to no avail.
Could somebody shed some light on this issue?
I have internalized the letters into the attached GH def, but am also attaching the illustrator file that I'm using.…
e any affect, but that's way too slow if 90% of the GH program is initialization and creation of source geometry to then simply alter a bit or array here and there. When I use Python directly to change output values that I plug into former slider inputs, again no new solution is triggered at all so I'd have to recalculate the entire Grasshopper program which is simply not how Grasshopper normally works. How do I actually emulate a human changing a slider value one slider at a time in a way that makes Grasshopper behave normally so that only downstream flow is affected in an efficient way?
An related example would be if you have several separate programs in a Grasshopper page and you wanted to only change one of them without triggering full recalculation of them all.
At this point it's almost like a Windows mouse scripting utility is needed but if I need to do combinatorial combinations of all possible slider values, that seems quite thorny too unless I set up a pre-arranged array of values that could then simply be incremented "manually" followed by a right click to bake and then typing commands into Rhino to save to a file. UGH. That would be quite difficult to pull off since I need to control file names, but it's what I seem to need.
I'm using Python since it avoids thorny Grasshopper schemes and it allows me to access Rhino to save baked objects files.…
ving a copy of the surface in the original position. Second, and more frustrating, not all of the surfaces orient properly. A few lay flat but then rotate 90 degrees horizontally.
Any help or insights would be greatly appreciated!
Images and files are below.
grasshopper screenshot 1gh%20problem%20part%201.png
grasshopper screenshot 2gh%20problem%20part%202.png
grasshopper file slat%20wall%20C2.gh…
y in English. ○Presenter
Robert (Bob) McNeel (McNeel & Associates founder) Robert (Bob) McNeel is the founder and president of Robert McNeel & Associates (RMA). Founded in 1978, RMA originally focused on developing accounting software for accounting, architecture, engineering, and other personal services firms. Within a few years, RMA expanded its services to include selling and supporting microprocessor-based engineering and design software including AutoCAD. By 1985, the main focus of the business had shifted to AutoCAD sales, service, training, and software development. Bob McNeel grew up in the mountains of southern Washington State on a subsistence dairy farm. To pay for college, he worked in construction as a carpenter, welder, and cement finisher. Bob has a BA in Accounting from Washington State University. Prior to founding McNeel & Associates, he was a practicing Certified Public Accountant and the comptroller for a large construction company in Spokane. Andrés González (Rhino Fablab director) Andrés is a software trainer and developer since the 1980s. He has developed applications for diverse design markets as well as training materials for different CAD and Design software including the community of training materialswww.Rhino3D.TV Andrés has been working with the Rhino Team since the very early stages. He is now the head of the McNeel Southeast US & Latin American Division. He is the worldwide director of the digital fabrication community called RhinoFabLabwww.RhinoFabLab.com as well as the Generative Jewelry & Fashion Design community GJD3D www.GJD3d.com and Generative Furniture Design community GFD3D www.GFD3d.com 1981 -1985 University of North Carolina at Charlotte N.C. - EE.UU. B.S., Bachelor of Science in Engineering
…
Added by Yusuke Oono at 9:28pm on October 16, 2013
ey provide all the means to what I try to achieve.
What I need is to get a fast (as possible) evaluation of passive heat/solar gain from a certain facade. I know my building can cool to a certain degree (lets say 80 W/m2 - now lets forget other internal gains) and I want to be sure my facade is not letting excessive amounts of heat into the room/building. Normally I would make a full blown simulation to count my overheating hours and thereby evaluate my facade. To speed up the process, the idea is just to evaluate overheating hours in a faster way. So what I am thinking is that excessive amounts may estimated by counting high intensity irradiation patches in a critical sky-component or whatever such thing would be called that surpasses my sensible cooling load. My hope is that any facade visible to the sky-patches would very similar to the number of overheating hours if properly calibrated to a simulated model. However I have no idea right now, if this can be done.
Why do this? Speed, convenience, whole building thermal analyses.
@Chris and @Abraham The critical sky-component is made with LBs radiance component radiation and filtering the beam-components with highest effects from a yearly epw-file.
@Chris Conductive heat gains are also important especially if the facade is badly insulated, so the next step is to filter the outdoor temperature parallel with that critical sky-component and then do a static heat transfer analysis and combine that with the effect from direct sun influence. Again, no idea if it works.
Hope it makes sense. I a little embarrassed I drew you into this little experiment. This was not at all the point of the discussion. But now we are into it I like to know what you think. If it works its kinda neat, at least i think it is.
/K…
precise) that unfortunately has more than one staff. This means that I pay the bills (unfortunate to the max). Practice is vertical meaning no Structural/HVAC etc services.
2. AEC Projects are made by teams. Period.
3. Teams are organized with some sort of hierarchy. Period.
4. On each team there's always one leader. Teams can being sampled in group teams - call them clusters (kinda like a List of List of ...)
5. All cluster leaders report to the supreme human being (yours truly). Leader heads are always on my disposal (it's fun to decapitate someone: I do this every Monday).
6. AEC projects are made with 1% idea(s) and 99% of what we call "sludge" (this is not my job: I'm the One , he he).
7. You can't steer any boat if you don't know each @@$#@ nut and bold. In the past there was a naive approach on that matter (ruined automotive companies, potato chip makers, software vendors, political systems, secret service agencies ... etc etc).
8. Efficiency is above all (even above tax-free cash).
9, You can't do ANY AEC real-life thing with what GH has to offer (nor Rhino is an AEC BIM app - it would never be). You simply use GH as a supplement to Generative Components (and/or as stand alone because it's good fun). There's nothing that GH does (I'm speaking solely for AEC as always) that can't being done with Generative Components.
10. I've done so fat 257 projects (a "bit" bigger than a house, he he). Let's say about 51427 drawings (master, master details, details) and 78956 lines of text (specs, cost estimations, space schedules, supplier lists, contracts, cats and 1 dog).
If you combine all the above you'll have the answer (i.e. why I use solely - if possible - code and not GH components). If you can't combine them I'm sorry.
PS: C# is the absolute standard (never judge a language as a "stand-alone" thingy).
best, Peter (Prince of Cynics)
…
he past Architecture was the art of sketching: some "idea" with pencils/crayons + vellum paper (or with some computer) > then "others" trying to make this happen. This in general is known as top-to-bottom approach. Naive and dangerous (for the reputation/reception/acceptance of Architects/Architecture) to the max.
2. These days we work both ways: whilst some work on some "idea" (called it: "assembly") others (in sync mode) resolve the bits and nuts of that "idea" - up to 1:1 level of detail (called it "components"). This is the bottom-to-top approach. Make this your way: NEVER proceed in something whist's not EVERY bit of that something is well addressed (with at least 3-5 ways).
3. The emergence of parametric (GH, Generative Components, Dynamo) in AEC (an approach well known in MCAD word many years ago, mind) made things ... worst: the tremendous topology exploitation capabilities blinded people's mind and they are completely sucked up by the forest forgetting/by passing the critical fact that there's no forest without trees.
4. That's expected: is in the human nature to follow/admire the blink/glam and omit/skip the humble. It's the easy way you know, he he.
5. The tremendous growth of countries the likes of UAE/China/Russia made AEC things ... even worst: lot's of cash available > make us some encomium to Vanity, forget Modesty. You can replace "Vanity" with "New Frontiers" ... if you like fooling yourself.
Some Academics are not capable to understand all that: if they could they would potentially operate in the field (where the pink color is rarely used) and not in fishbowl(s). Some Academics believe that an "idea" is the 99% of the whole whilst actually is less than 1%. But on the other hand anyone can do Architecture (even Architects, he he).
That said (Vanity crisis) you want some other "component" options for this case of yours? (starting with "some" dollars more and ending with the mortgage the house/sell wife+kids option).
take care (and kill them all)…