n due at the end of march. i am hoping to see if i can do this as a sort of "HIVE MIND" experiment with one or two or more posters to the forum. i have uploaded two files to http://www.formpig.com/nine_bar-FAR and I have the following goals:
1. To "kinematically iterate" various formal building envelopes based upon a 50' x 100' lot that "conform" to the nine bar linkage geometry.
2. This lot would have "setbacks" consisting of two 5' side setbacks, a 10' rear yard setback and a 25' front yard setback. max height on the structure is 32' and the allowable overhangs into the setbacks are 2'. I would like to find a way to use the "nine bar geometry" to construct a series of iterations for "floors", "walls" and "ceilings", which would then be tied to a volumetric (cubic volume), or a total square footage (perhaps based upon two horizontal section cuts) which was based upon a given number that I will provide per local building code.
3. Laid on top of this we would also have "mcmansion ordinance" requirements based upon the pdf enclosed. i expect to have this "tent restriction" data in digital form to upload to ftp shortly.
It would be up to you individually or collectively to determine how best to position this "in the real world" based upon the lot, setbacks, zoning requirements etc. For instance, perhaps the nine bar configuration has its vertices coplanar with the 50' x 100' x 32' envelope restrictions and then the chosen volume is "trimmed' by the setback requirements. Or perhaps the nine-bar configuration is generated completely within the setbacks, or perhaps it is generated 2' outside of the setbacks so as to take advantage of the 2' overhang allowance on the setbacks, etc.
*
Given an opportunity to develop the work in a second phase we would have an opportunity to tie this into various efficiencies such as Bill of Materials (wall floor and ceiling square foot calculations), envelope to volume calculations, solar panel efficiencies (solar orientation and envelope geometry) etc, etc (love to get suggestions for this).
*
I've become /really/ convinced that this would be a /really/ interesting entry based upon my just finishing up Kas Oosterhuis' Towards a New Kind of Building: A Designer's Guide for Non-Standard Architecture". In an ideal world I was hoping that it would be possible to hash this out discussion-wise and then literally passing it around on the list after someone eventually made the first move by tossing out a rough ghx script. My expectation would be to finalize it rapidly in the next two weeks. Something of a contemporary version of a design charette.
However, I realize this may not be workable so if you have experience in this arena and particularly if you think this is a brief that is straighforward enough to be almost literally implemented in Grasshopper, please contact me for any wage and/or contract fee requirements.
I'm getting a bit of a late jump on this but my hope is that with the right participant(s) that I can thrash it together quick enough for the first round.
info@formpig.com…
nition. Using RenderAnimation component from http://www.giuliopiacentino.com/grasshopper-tools/, I could do all of above except for the Toon material part.
I have found a post regarding same matter ( http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/how-to-add-materials-to-material-table ), but since I am not very familiar with scripts, this is what I think his definition does. Correct me if I am wrong.
Since Rhino Vray only supports Toon environment per material (unlike Max Vray has global override feature),
1. import toon material from Rhino material editor
2. add colors to the toon material and make new toon materials with color (as many as needed)
3. import that new materials back into grasshopper
4. match them with designated geometries and render. (RenderAnimation component by Giulio does this job) Here is the final work he did : http://vimeo.com/34728433
Grasshopper + Vray from Marc Syp on Vimeo.
I am using rhino 4 with vray 1.5.
I have uploaded my definition, simple definition that transforms box height along with color as frame advances. The definition works but toon effect is not there.…
case for sure (started by Giorgio a couple of days before). Ive got involved because I exploit ways to "relax" shapes on nurbs (say patterns created by Lunchbox or "manually) without using any kind of mesh (more explanations soon).
Here's 5 test cases (SDK appears that doesn't have some "thicken surface" thing ... thus the algo that finds the "whole" shapes is rather naive) VS 2 Kangaroo "methods" and the why bother (he he) option as well.
If the goal is to "fit" these shapes within the nurbs ... does it work so far? No I'm afraid (appears that "springs" used are not the proper ones - or [Kangaroo1 option] the lines that pull should been originated from valance 2 points only)
Tricky points:
1. Internalize appears having a variety of serious issues (see Input inside definition) - Load Rhino file first (but even so ...).
2. Pull to surface is deactivated - this is not the issue here (and it's very slow).
3. Since Starling/WB alter the "curves - points" related order
the issue here (Pull points to curves) is to correspond apples to apples:
and that's what Anemone does:
From chaos :
to order:
this means that prior activating Kangaroo you should double click to the Anemone start component in order to "sort" properly the curves.
But .. fact is that results are pathetic:
more soon
best, Peter…
bsp;
-Vehicle elements (3D objects and a component for custom vehicles; models from Google Warehouse)
-Traffic Velocity Graphs, drawn on every trajectory curve (allow custom graphs drawn)
-Traffic regulation elements (such as Traffic Lights and Stop Signals) and traffic density
-Particle Systems on trajectory curves, just to manage the traffic regulations and avoid collisions based on security distances
-Traffic Vehicle Animation Modes (Dots, Bounding Boxes or complex Meshes with attributes for final rendering (Giulio Piacentino´s Render Animation)
-Vehicle Lights and Vehicle Sights, to make visual studies
Team:
-Sergio del Castillo Tello (Doctor No, lead programmer)
-Everyone that wants to be involved, support.. these tools
The development of Roadrunner is planned to take part within a Research Group Program at ETSAM (University of Architecture in Madrid); This forum group is created just to test the interest of the community, while we keep on developing (it is still being tested), probably we will share the whole thing in the future. Cheers!
Traffic Cluster Scheme
Traffic Elements
Traffic Urban Systems
Vehicle Elements
Roadrunner - overview
Roadrunner 0 Basics
Roadrunner 1 Modes
Roadrunner 2 Elements
Roadrunner 3 Urban Systems…
rameters, which forces the user to connect all three curve input parameters (even if only 2 are required) to avoid the message 'Input parameter ... failed to collect data'. How can I set up the curve inputs so that null values are valid? I'm currently registering these as curve parameters as below, and suspect the answer lies in using a different method for parameter registration.
protected override void RegisterInputParams(GH_Component.GH_InputParamManagerpManager)
{
pManager.Register_SurfaceParam(
"Reference Surface", "S", "Surface on which laths are to be generated", GH_ParamAccess.item);
pManager.Register_CurveParam(
"Surface curves 1", "Curves 1", "Set of curves across surface in first direction", GH_ParamAccess.list);
pManager.Register_CurveParam(
"Surface curves 2", "Curves 2", "Set of curves across surface in second direction", GH_ParamAccess.list);
pManager.Register_CurveParam(
"Surface Curves 3", "Curves 3", "Set of curves across surface in third direction", GH_ParamAccess.list);
pManager.Register_DoubleParam(
"Lath Offsets 1", "LO1", "Offset from surface to centreline of first layer", 0.0, GH_ParamAccess.item);
pManager.Register_DoubleParam(
"Lath Offsets 2", "LO2", "Offset from surface to centreline of second layer", 0.0, GH_ParamAccess.item);
pManager.Register_DoubleParam(
"Lath Offsets 3", "LO3", "Offset from surface to centreline of third layer", 0.0, GH_ParamAccess.item);
pManager.Register_IntegerParam(
"Seed Value (0, 1, 2)", "Seed", "Seed value for weave offsets (0 for no weave, 1 or 2 for weave)",0, GH_ParamAccess.item);
}
Thanks!
Alex
…
Added by Alex Baalham at 9:48am on October 1, 2012
on that does it the other way around and culls pts of a point cloud instead.
Problem is... I can't create more than 1 million pts (takes 45 min.) and culling out points produces pattern, as I can't create enough load value point density with Millipede. The gradient between different density areas should be more smoothly, unlike in the last snapshot, but like in Daniel Piker's Dynamic Remeshing with Plankton http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/dynamic-remeshing-script-with-plankton-and-kangaroo?groupUrl=plankton&xg_source=activity&groupId=2985220%3AGroup%3A875392&id=2985220%3ATopic%3A985823&page=6#comments
Following snapshots illustrate the process until I generate lines via Proximity and then use Marching Cubes. I would need 10-30 times more pts for my goal, but I dont see any possibility how to do this. Theoretically I would know how to do it... combine the code behind "Populate 3D" with areal density value regarding load values. Any help how to do this would be highly appreciated, no matter which software, but preferably grasshopper of course.
Please find the rhino and gh file here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/2tdrams80wlbru0/AACmxAV4VdrNEVxrtISQ5UQm...
Many thanks,
Oliver
p.s. open gh file with cautions. Calculation takes a few minutes
…
f objects with the main ring body, and that cannot be done in parallel since you are modifying the item once at a time, algorithmically.
The original example of a cylinder and sphere are textbook failures of the Rhino 5 dumb algorithm, since that combination features kissing surfaces that confuse Rhino about where they are intersecting since really in tolerance values they are overlapping along a ribbon instead of a sharp line.
Normally you would slightly move or rescale one of the pair to create a single loop intersection curve that doesn't wander around in jerky fashion trying to combine two surfaces that fail to actually plunge through one another.
Your main Boolean union is 116 prongs with a ring base, and that's slow because Rhino bogs down as the model gets more an more complicated with each internal step, I imagine.
The speed is not all that slow either, only 21 seconds for the Booleans themselves.
If you turn of Grasshopper preview meshing via the toolbar menu it should be significantly faster while you are tweaking the design.
To troubleshoot the slow Boolean, I went into Rhino and tried merely splitting the ring body with the prongs and that itself was just about as slow as the Boolean union, so Rhino is not being badass about it. Then I exploded the ring body and tried splitting just that with the prongs and it was *much* faster to operate on just that single surface! The black box reveals itself a bit.
In kind, splitting the prongs with that single surface was about the same speed as splitting it with the whole ring body, so no speed gain there.
But, to speed up your script, since we *cannot* in fact use parallel processing, we can instead manually create that prong surface by doing our own splits and using Grasshopper's natural order of parts, hopefully consistent, to get rid of the junk.
That prong surface is item 4 of an exploded object.
So I will mutually split them and tease out the good parts from the junk and then rejoin the parts, no Boolean union component needed.
First, I went into your prong cluster and removed the capping, so I have merely an open revolution surface instead of a polysurface, letting me access the surface trim command after quickly finding the BrepBrep intersection curves between the prongs and the single ring surface.
For that Boolean union step I'm down from 11 seconds to 4 seconds, but confusingly we added a second to the Boolean difference that follows:
It's fast since we are manually selecting junk instead of Rhino having to sort which is which, I imagine.
We still have a slow Boolean subtraction of the gems and holes from the finished ring body.
That's not simple so will remain slow and cannot be parallel processed since again there's a single main ring body being modified in each step, and nor are there simple pairs of split object to select from manually to discard junk.
…