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
he picture (4).
Previously, I had a problem with generating intersections between the two directions of the beams, but a colleague helped me by extending beams, so there was no problem with lines of intersection. But this solution has generated curl (5) at the highest vertex geometry, which I ignored in order to repair it before printing, perhaps this mean my problem with my beam spread properly. Only when the beams is 19, does not jump no problem, but I still can not distribute them properly.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
I tried to show as simply as possible by removing or signing my code in GHX file.
Thank you in advance for your help
…
s levels of detail by subdividing a 6 sided cube mesh and projecting its vertices according to a referenced height map. This is one of the standard conventions for building full sizes planets. At the lowest level (0) the mesh planet is made of 6 pieces(each 32x32 resolution). The next level down (1) is made of 24 pieces... 6 divided by 4 = 24. Level (2) is 96 quads etc etc. The script will generate each quad at its sub-division level and compare edge vertices to neighboring quads. It will then make sure any shared vertices are in fact at the same projected vector. This ensures a planet quad with edge vertices that match.
The problems comes in texturing each quad.
If I build the quad as a nurb surface from points I can place the texture easily because each surface UV maps squarely to my texture map (which is also square).
If I build the quad as a mesh I cannot just apply the square texture to the mesh UVs. This is because when you unwrap the UVs from a mesh they will not unwrap like a nurb surface's UVs. Therefore to get the correct mapping I would have to manipulate each UV back to an evenly aligned array (which is 1024 points in a 32x32 resolution UV). Maya and blender have 'relax uv' and 'align UV' functions but they don't do the trick and manual corrections are out of the question. So why not skip the mesh method and use the nurb method?
I did this and there is a trade off. The nurb will accept the material texture I want with no other work on my end but when I export the object as an .obj rhino creates its own mesh to describe the nurb(with various unsatisfactory setting options). This works great up to a point because at some level the interpreted mesh will have vertices that do no match at the edges, ie .. creating visible seams in the mesh. The picture below is the nearly seamless planet at LOD(1) made of 24 quads, each with 32x32 vertice resolution and a 512x512 jpg texture running in Unity3d 5. It works but at close level there are seams. This will be resolved simply by having the next LOD(x) instantiate before getting close enough to see the seam but at core nerd level I want the seamless mesh.
So, I can make the seamless mesh but I can not realistically texture map it. I can also make the nurb surface from points and texture it at the expense of the edge vertices matching. I am at the split in the road but I want to have my cake and eat it too. Thoughts, comments, trolls...?
Thanks for reading =)
Footnote: For you pros I am not using seamless noise across the map I am using grasshopper to sew up my otherwise non perfect edges.
Other programs in the pipeline:
-WorldMachine 2
-Wilbur
-Photoshop
-Unity3d…
ARRAY with certain spatial order or mechanism under consideration of ecological design. The evaluation and definition of “ARRAY” are open to applicants’ imaginations. While the term “ecological” is subjected to many definitions: social, ecological, sustainable, its re-evaluations are open to students’ interpretations. Entrants are free to choose or make site, real or virtual.
ELIGIBILITY
Open to international students in the fields of architecture and design related disciplines from an accredited four-year or five-year architecture program. Graduates with certificate in 2011 are accepted. Teamed collaboration consisting of no more than 3 students in the above mentioned fields is permitted. Works submitted must be of applicants’ original works. Works done through school studios are accepted, but limited to 2011 term.
ENTRY FEE
Free
DEADLINES
Online Registration deadline: Oct 30th, 2011, 17:00 Taipei Time
(Upon completing registration, applicant will receive a registration number via email.)
Submission deadline: email sent by Nov 3rd, 2011, 17:00 Taipei Time
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
This is a digital competition and no hardcopies are necessary. Entrants must submit their proposal via email no later than Nov 3rd, 2011 17:00 (Taipei Time) to the following email address:
hojenhwang@mail.ntut.edu.tw
The project submission must contain the following files:
1. Two A1 boards in portrait format (594mm x 841mm), with identification number at the upper right corner. Names and other identifying information are not allowed on front side of the boards. The resolution of the boards must be 300dpi, RGB mode and saved as JPG files.. The files must be named after the registration number followed by the board number. For example: 03956-board1.jpg and 03956-board2.jpg.
2. A DOC file containing the project discription (600 words max). This file must be named after the registration number followed by the word "discription". For example: 03956-discription.doc.
3. A scan of statement form. This file must be named after the registration number followed by the word "statement_scan". For example: 03956-statement_scan.jpg.
4. All the files must be placed in a ZIP folder named after your registration number. For example: 03956.zip. Size of the ZIP folder is suggested to be less than 15mb, while size more than 25mb will not be accepted
AWARDS
(1) Gold Prize winner will be awarded TWD 60,000 and a trophy.
(2) Silver Prize winner will be awarded TWD 30,000 and a trophy
(3) Bronze Prize winner will be awarded TWD 15,000 and a trophy
(4) Honorable Mention winners will be awarded TWD 5,000 and a merit certificate
Winners will be announced and notified by mid of Nov, 2011.
JURY
Two stages of open jury. Details to be announced
PUBLIC EXHIBITION
Nov 13, 2011~ Nov 18, 2011 at NTUT, Taipei
…
Added by Yu-Min Su at 2:03am on September 23, 2011
rves/holes. However, the Kangaroo script itself is prone to locking up so it seems like it might take forever. You can even double click stop the timer from the Windows task bar, I hadn't noticed that before:
You have to use that or right click disable the timer since even with the Reset toggle button input set to True the timer itself locks up the script a bit when you are changing things around.
Just setting the min/max numbers both to a desired mesh size gives a uniform mesh:
Oh weird, it's about if the timer is right click set to so small an interval that it gets ahead of Kangaroo! When you see how long each cycle is taking with the Display > Canvas Widgets > Profiler you just set the timer for above that and the interface comes back into being responsive. It only takes a few Kangaroo cycles to do the inflation, so a full second timer interval is even workable.
A finer mesh:
It's funny running it so slow since it overinflates at first, bulging out, before it equilibrates.
You have control over inflation pressure and mesh stiffness, for a variety of effects.
This is a good system once I realized the timer needed to be mellowed out.
What made it work was the fast custom meshing since a normal mesh is awful and MeshMachine wouldn't work with sharp corner holes at all, breaking out of the boundary even if I fixed curves or vertices or did the equivalent with NURBS surfaces instead of a starting mesh.
There is an initiation time for Kangaroo that doesn't show up on its Profiler time that happens even with the timer off.
There are some fine areas that can't inflate with a reasonable mesh setting:
Worth playing with but no match for ArtCAM since it suffers odd delays in between working fast. If I could get better 2D meshes, that were more adaptive it would be better, but MeshMachine is one of the only re-meshers I know and it's broken for even mildly sharp hole features.
Ah, how about a crude mesh that is then subdivided, guaranteeing inner vertices everywhere? Sort of works, but is still too dense. Way too dense to even do anything. The subdivision triangulates the quads, vastly increasing the mesh wire density. Better just to make a finer initial mesh with plenty of quads.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 12:57am on February 21, 2016
y using the Honeybee_Update Honeybee component.
The video below (best viewed in full-screen mode) provides an idea of what these components are capable of being used for:
The video below shows how these components can be used in an existing Honeybee project (for additional links please open this video in youtube):
I have uploaded two examples as Hydra files that show how these components can be used for grid-point and image-based simulations:
Example1 : Grid Point Calculations
Example2: Image based simulation
Finally, a more esoteric application is demonstrated in this video:
These components are still in the beta-testing stage. Some of the limitations of the components are:
1. Only Type C photometry IES files are supported at present.
2. Rhino is likely to get sluggish if there are too many luminaires (i.e. light fixtures) present in a scene.
3. Due to the spectral limitations of the ray-tracing software (RADIANCE), simulations involving color mixing might not be physically realizable.
Additional details about photometric and spectral calculations are probably an overkill for this forum. However, I'd be glad to answer any related questions. Please report any bugs or request new features either on this forum or on Github.
Mostapha, Leland Curtis, Reinhardt Swart and Dr. Richard Mistrick provided valuable inputs during the development of these components.
Thanks,
Sarith
Update 16th January 2017:
An example with some new components and bug fixes since the initial release announcement can be found here
…
thing that MicroStation does (or doesn't). The eternal debate between us is that they focus to the so called BIM aspect of things (and obviously on interoperability matters - that said IFC2*4 is" implemented" in certain Bentley verticals like BA and others) whilst I'm after assembly/component puzzles (and on that matter ... MS ...hmm... to put it politely is not exactly CATIA and/or NX, he he).
On the other hand this paranoid obsession with Level/Layer driven CAD (I hate it) defines a red thick line between CAD and MCAD - because the most intelligent importer can't emulate the way that Siemens NX/CATIA classifies objects - and without control power means nothing.
On the other hand Microstation V9 (...soon) has interesting scripting capabilities (think Modo rather Generative Components) ... meaning that Grasshopper could work there in a rather nice way. I think that I must talk for that to Ray (he recently ditched the ancient legacy MS render engine in favor for the Luxology/Nexus engine). Ray still is negative to buy Act3D mind (hope that you know the mother of visual scripting - the Quest3D VR thing).
On the other hand - within the broad AEC aspect - things these days are different (especially in fast developing countries the likes of UAE, Saudi Arabia, certain ex USSR "democracies" etc etc). Studies are outsourced even at Preliminary Design stage to various sub-contractors (they undertake the Study completion per discipline as well). This means that N separate groups doing M aspects of the whole ... meaning entropy^(N*M) - that's chaos in plain English.
With this in mind I'm quite (a lot) skeptical about the practical meaning of the whole exchange thing in AEC - at least with regard the countries mentioned (not to mention that several portions of a modern AEC thing are made via MCAD apps - chaos^chaos.
I'll back with more focused issues on that matter.
But the big question is: Grasshopper of Generative Components? Well...let's talk serious SS bikes instead: think a Ducati 1198 and a BMW S1000RR (I have them both): which is "best"? The thing is that not always the best bunny is the fasted bunny and not always the fasted bunny is the best bunny.
Cheers,
Peter
…
ty to work in a new and exciting space, where design, art, technology and fashion meet.
If you guys are looking for a full- or part-time job, or know an expert who is - we're happy to with meet him/her. We're located in the Lower East Side, New York.
What the person will be doing:
- Provide technical vision for product and infrastructure features
- Work with Marketing/Product Management to enhance the user experience
- Develop (with our team) our e-commerce customization platform
- Manage our real time 3D modeling platform
- Mentor 3D modelers and developers, define and document development methods, and share best practices
- Review and recommend improvements to product architecture
What we require:
- BA/BS/ BARCH degree OR CS/EE/Engineering degree preferred
- EXTENSIVE 3d modeling, rhino and grasshopper experience
- Experience building online computer games
- Experience creating natural and fractal patterns and forms in 3d
- UV Texture Mapping bit mapping (texture mapping)
- Experience managing a development team in projects with tight SCHEDULES
- Architecture, programing, scripting, Media or Fashion industry experience preferred
- Experience implementing web interfaces using XHTML, CSS, Javascript, and AJAX
- Experience in recommendation engines and algorithms
- Interest in working in an early stage fast-paced environment…
edit 29/04/14 - Here is a new collection of more than 80 example files, organized by category:
KangarooExamples.zip
This zip is the most up to date collection of examples at the moment, and collects t
ers and researchers, programmers and artists, professionals and academics who come together for 4 days of intense collaboration, development, and design.
The sg2012 Workshop will be organised around Clusters. Clusters are hubs of expertise. They comprise of people, knowledge, tools, materials and machines. The Clusters provide a focus for workshop participants working together within a common framework.
Clusters provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, processes and techniques and act as a catalyst for design resolution. The Workshop is made up of ten Clusters that respond in diverse ways to the sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities.
Applicants to the sg2012 Workshop will select their preferred cluster from the following:
Beyond Mechanics
Micro Synergetics
Composite Territories
Ceramics 2.0
Material Conflicts
Transgranular Perspiration
Reactive Acoustic Environments
Form Follows Flow
Bioresponsive Building Envelopes
Gridshell Digital Tectonics
More information about the Workshop and Clusters can be found here:
http://smartgeometry.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=116&Itemid=131
The application process will close on January 15th, 2012.
Full Fee $1500
Reduced Fee $750
Scholarship Fee $350
Fees include attendance to both the workshop and conference from March 19th-24th.
Reduced Fee and Scholarships are available only for Academics, Students and Young Practitioners, and are awarded during a competitive peer review process.
sg2012 takes place from 19-24 March 2012 at EMPAC (http://empac.rpi.edu/) and is hosted by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, upstate New York USA. The Workshop and Conference will be a gathering of the global community of innovators and pioneers in the fields of architecture, design and engineering.
The event will be in two parts: a four day Workshop 19-22 March, and a public conference beginning with Talkshop 23 March, followed by a Symposium 24 March. The event follows the format of the highly successful preceding events sg2010 Barcelona and sg2011 Copenhagen.
sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities
Simulation, Energy, Environment
Imagine the design space of architecture was no longer at the scale of rooms, walls and atria, but that of cells, grains and vapour droplets. Rather than the flow of people, services, or construction schedules, the focus becomes the flow of light, vapour, molecular vibrations and growth schedules: design from the inside out.
The sg2012 challenge, Material Intensities, is intended to dissolve our notion of the built environment as inert constructions enclosing physically sealed spaces. Spaces and boundaries are abundant with vibration, fluctuating intensities, shifting gradients and flows. The materials that define them are in a continual state of becoming: a dance of energy and information. Material potential is defined by multiple properties: acoustical, chemical, electrical, environmental, magnetic, manufacturing, mechanical, optical, radiological, sensorial, and thermal. The challenge for sg2012 Material Intensities is to consider material economy when creating environments, micro-climates and contexts congenial for social interaction, activities and organisation. This challenge calls for design innovation and dialogue between disciplines and responsibilities. sg2010 Working Prototypes strove to emancipate digital design from the hard drive by moving from the virtual to the actual in wrestling with the tangible world of physical fabrication. sg2011 Building the Invisible focused on informing digital design with real world data. sg2012 Material Intensities strives to energise our digital prototypes and infuse them with material behaviour. They have the potential to become rich simulations informed by the material dynamics, chemical composition, energy flows, force fields and environmental conditions that feed back into the design process.
More information can be found at http://www.smartgeometry.org
Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/smartgeometry…
Added by Shane Burger at 12:29pm on December 13, 2011