s, the participants will focus on the key advantages of Grasshopper’s capabilities through a range of design challenges in order to aid designers in both their drafting tasks and modelling capabilities.
The workshop covers many concepts such as Object Attributes/Parameters, Data Types, Data Structures, and Designing with Algorithms. Specifically, this course will focus on understanding both Lists and Data Trees, as well as the best practices for integrating Grasshopper into your Professional Design Workflow. The workshop offers guided curriculum and continuous support, based on in-depth and professional learning experiences.
Workshop outcomes:Teach the participants how to:-
+ be proficient in parametric logics learning the key benefits of parametric techniques in architecture design workflow (when to use it & how to use it)+ Correctly communicate with different 3D and BIM packages in order to keep the geometry clean and light while preserving all NURBS information.+ Develop architecture design based on mathematical equations to create non-standard free form building skin.+ Create a pattern that changes dynamically based on specific inputs which can be applied over the building façade, interior walls or ceiling or even floor pattern.+ Automate and Optimize design variables to achieve the optimum solution for the design problem.
Program Outline:
DAY 1:-Introduction to Parametric Design -Introduction to Grasshopper & Rhino (technical tools).
DAY 2:-Exploring the parametric workflow. -Setup the design algorithm & generating a list of data.
DAY 3:-Introducing the new ways of generating parametric curves and surfaces.-Parametric form generation in-dept
DAY 4:-Introducing Data Tree logic and parametric transformations.-Creating Associative techniques – Attractors (points, curves and vectors).
DAY 5:-Working with advanced form generation with dynamic pattern.-Parametric optimization based on environmental analysis -featuring the Performance-Driven Design possibilities
DURATION:6 – 8 hours per day [50 - 60 hours Total]Every Saturday [9.00 Am : 1.00 Pm & 2.30 Pm : 6.00 Pm]
PREREQUISITES:No need of any specific knowledge of Rhinoceros or Grasshopper.
REGISTRATION:In order to register, you will need to fill the Registration Form .https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1PckdW1hrWs9fJAHWBZlVsuhH8K0PfDuMWIpXHT_4FYw/viewform
REGISTRATION DEADLINE:23th October 2014.…
Added by ayman wagdy at 7:48am on October 19, 2014
hopper no requiere de conocimientos de programación o scripting para permitir al diseñador trabajar de forma generativa y paramétrica. No son necesarios conocimientos previos de Grasshopper pero sí de Rhino a nivel básico.
Controlmad es Centro Formador Autorizado Rhinoceros y Rhino fab Studio.
Nuestros profesores son Instructores Autorizados Rhinoceros con experiencia universitaria, nacional e internacional.
El curso y los ejercicios a desarrollar están enfocados a diseñadores, arquitectos, ingenieros y estudiantes.
En este curso introductorio el alumno se familiarizará con términos básicos de la estructura de Grasshopper, como “listas de datos”, “dominios”, “estructuras en árbol”, etc.
Es un curso de 18 horas, con el que se pretende entrar en la lógica de trabajo de Grasshopper mediante diversos ejercicios, de forma que el alumno sea capaz posteriormente de desarrollar sus propias gramáticas, con la confianza que da comprender los términos básicos de programación sobre los que se apoya todo el sistema de trabajo de Grasshopper.Para este curso no son necesarios conocimientos previos de Grasshopper, pero sí de Rhino (a nivel básico).
También se vincula el programa con la impresión 3D aprendiendo a exportar archivos desde Grasshopper con los requisitos mínimos de impresión 3D. Se realizará una demo de impresión en el aula.
El primer día del curso se le facilita al alumno un manual-tutorial con los ejercicios a realizar, en PDF.
A la finalización del curso, y siempre que el alumno haya asistido al 80% de las clases, se le otorgará un diploma oficial acreditativo del curso.
Fechas: 5, 6, 12 y 13 de marzo
Horario: sábado y domingo 16 - 20,30h (Madrid, CET)
Lugar: Sesiones On-line en directo a través de nuestra plataforma online.controlmad.com
…
, Engineer and Researcher from France with broad programming experience. He is the author of the City in 3D Rhinoceros plugin for creation of buildings according to geojson file and with real elevation. Guillaume already created a new component: "Address to Location". It enables getting latitude and longitude values for the given address:
2) Support of Bathymetry data: automatic creation of underwater (sea/river/lake floor) terrain. This feature is now available through new source_ input of the "Terrain generator" component. Here is an example of terrain of the Loihi underwater volcano, of the coast of Hawaii:
3) A new terrain source has been added: ALOS World 3D 30m. ALOS is a Japanese global terrain data. Gismo "Terrain Generator" component has been using SRTM 30m terrain data, which hasn't been global and was limited to -56 to +60 latitude range. With this addition, it is possible to switch between SRTM and ALOS World 3D 30m models with the use of source_ input.
4) 9 new components have been added:
"Address To Location" - finds latitude and longitude coordinates for the given address.
"XY To Location" - finds latitude and longitude coordinates for the given Rhino XY coordinates. "Location To XY" - vice versa from the previous component: finds Rhino XY coordinates for the given latitude longitude coordinates. "Z To Elevation" - finds elevation for particular Rhino point. "Rhino text to number" - convert numeric text from Rhino to grasshopper number. "Rhino unit to meters" - convert Rhino units to meters. "Deconstruct location" - deconstructs .epw location. "New Component Example" - this component explains how to make a new Gismo component, in case you are interested to make one. We welcome new developers, even if you contribute a single component to Gismo! "Support Gismo" - gives some suggestions on how to make Gismo better, how to improve it and support it.
5) Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component now supports all units, not only Meters. So any Gismo example file which uses this component, can now use Rhino units other than Meters as well. Thank you Antonello Di Nunzio for making this happen!!
Basically just forget about this yellow panel:
This panel is not valid anymore, so just use any unit you want.
6) A number of bugs have been fixed, reported in topics for the last couple of weeks. We would like to thank members in the community who invested their time in testing, finding these bugs and reporting them: Rafat Ahmed, Peter Zatko, Mathieu Venot, Abraham Yezioro, Rafael Alonso. Thank you guys!!! Apologies if we forgot to mention someone.
The version 0.0.2 can be downloaded from here:
https://github.com/stgeorges/gismo/zipball/master
And example files from here:
https://github.com/stgeorges/gismo/tree/master/examples
Any new suggestions, testing and bug reports are welcome!!…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 5:13pm on March 1, 2017
tly light vehicles such as bicycles and variations thereof. Although frame design is mostly of a structural nature, there are a number of elements that interact mechanically. Also, as you may be aware, bicycle and high grade tubing is not of constant section so shelling method in FEA is out of the question, but even so, because the joint needs to be modeled very accurately, that means different geometry and properties for welded area, heat affected area and base material; like so a simpler FEA package may not suffice.
I don't know karamba extensively, rather superficially, actually, but I'm under the impression it mostly deals with beam analysis. Pls correct me if I am under the wrong impression. I must say it would be very nice to have a complete FEA package inside GH really!!
Typical workflow for me would be to model everything in Solidworks, and then export to Ansys Mechanical. Although Ansys needs to read every input and naturally remesh back again, integration within Solidworks, Catia, Inventor, Creo, Solidthinking... and the sort, works reasonably well.
Now, I don't remember Ansys having a Rhinoceros plugin so that you could bridge the 2 together, but maybe I should go check again.
3) Great work with that fractal tree. It's nice to know it is a possibility at least. I have tried Apophysis and others, but to my knowledge there's not an application that could deliver 3D fractal designs in a way that you could further manipulate with conventional modelling techniques, maybe apply textures and render, or export to CAM, 3D printing... etc.
P.S.: I have tried all the apps mentioned above and then some more. All of them have serious limitations when it comes to parametric design. For complex models they crash plenty upon rebuilding... a number of time consuming errors appear, and general work flow isn't very efficient for purely parametric work. Speaking for myself, I'd rather spend the time on a definition that enables me to have full control and then generate a new result within seconds, than model everything very quickly and then taking a long time with each new result.
(Thanks for the replies and sorry for the long text, you asked to elaborate).…
le] demo):
1. A transformation Matrix is a 4*4 collection of 16 values that "deform" 3d things according the values in the cells. The orthodox way is to deploy "cells" left to right and top to bottom. Rhino does the opposite (why?) hence we need the transpose method.
2. Since "translate" and "perspective" are "symmetrical" the transpose boolean toggle (within the C#) "flips" rows with columns ... so we get perspective or move.
3. When in perspective "mode" the vanishing points are computed internally within a min/max limit (per X/Y/Z axis) thus avoiding the usual havoc with "extreme" perspective angles (very common "glitz" in pretty much every CAD app - CATIA excluded). Vanishing points (and limits) are oriented with respect the pos/neg value of a given control slider.
Note: slider values are percentages between min/max (mode: perspective) and/or actual values*100 (mode: move).
4.In order to start mastering the whole thing: don't change anything: just play with these 4 sliders selected:
5. The 123 sardine cans challenge: even with DeusExMachine = true (see inside C#: that one redirects the transformation per BrepFace and then joins the breps instead of applying it on a brep basis)... odd things (and/or invalid breps) occur ... thus what is required in order to make things working 100% ??.
he, he
best, Lord of Darkness …
printers.
How I want to communicate this: The depth of transparent cubes is relative to the brightness of a picture (low depth = bright, high depth = dark). Then I assign each cube as red or blue depending on the RGB values of the cube column's corresponding pixel - this is where I'm stuck.
What I've done: I have one image sampler containing a greyscale version of my image which is outputting the brightness measurements. This made into lines, which are divided to create the points from which the cubes are created. (I have had to invert the image in photoshop as brightness gives black a low value when I need a high one, and vice versa)
What I want to do next: In the second image sampler I have an image which has a Red to Blue gradient applied to it. I want to group my cubes into reds and blues depending on the colour values in this image (so they could eventually be saved as a "blue" and "red" stl to be 3D printed).
So columns that correspond to a blue part of the image will contain a completely blue stack of cubes, and the same with red. But where there's a combination of blue and red values I need a combination of blue and red cubes mixed together. I was hoping to do this by turning the RGB values into some kind of ratio that will help assign each cube a group but I'm struggling.
Would love any thoughts on resolving my problem, even if it's only for part of it! This was quite hard to explain so let me know if there's anything that needs clarifying.
Thanks…
ndrea Graziano (Co-de-iT) Arch. Salvo Pappalardo (AION architecture) Arch. Giovanni Basile (Officina Ermocrate)
[.] Descrizione:
Modulo 1 Il workshop è finalizzato a fornire ai partecipanti i fondamenti della modellazione parametrica e generativa attraverso Grasshopper, plug-in di programmazione visuale per Rhinoceros 3D (uno dei più diffusi modellatori NURBS per l‘architettura e il design). Il workshop mira a gestire e sviluppare il rapporto tra informazione e geometria lavorando sui sistemi di involucro in condizioni specifiche. La discretizzazione di superfici (pannellizazione sia Nurbs che Mesh), la modellazione delle geometrie attraverso informazioni (siano esse provenienti da dati di analisi ambientali, da mappe di colore o da database), l’estrazione e la gestione di informazioni richiedono la comprensione delle strutture dei dati al fine di definire un processo che va dalla progettazione alla costruzione. I partecipanti impareranno come costruire e sviluppare strutture di dati parametrici per informare geometrie ‘data-driven’ e come estrarre le informazioni rilevanti da tali modelli per il processo di costruzione.
Modulo 2 Il workshop, volto a promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e alla fabbricazione, fornirà ai partecipanti, utilizzando Grasshopper, gli strumenti per la preparazione dei modelli 3D di elementi modulari decorativi "bricks & tiles" in argilla la cui successiva prototipazione avverrà tramite fresatura dello stampo con pantografo CNC a 3 assi. Il workshop darà quindi ai partecipanti i fondamenti per l’utilizzo di tale strumento di fabbricazione digitale e si concluderà con la fabbricazione di un proprio modello realizzato durante il corso.
[more info]
[Press Kit]…
sent a 3D shape without any ambiguity. If the shape you're trying to convey falls outside the scope of existing standards, then it can't be done, but this is a problem of standards, not an intrinsic shortcoming of pencils.
[...] with the computer theoretically acting as a decision maker.
The computer makes no decisions on it's own. It's a fully deterministic machine, meaning that any output is the result of applying a set of rules to some pre-existing data. Humans make the rules. At no point can you blame the computer for coming up with a bad answer, it's always some human who is responsible.
[...] it seems to often be split between Computerization, and Computation.
I'm willing to concede there exist cases that are unambiguously one or the other, but there's a gradient in between these two extremes, they are not separate categories. If I draw a box by specifying the 8 corner points as XYZ coordinates then computation can be said not to be involved. If I draw a box by specifying 2 opposite corners then the computer has to compute the other 6 coordinates and we're already on our way towards the other extreme. If I draw a box by specifying a width, height and a required volume, more computation is needed. If I specify a box by a width, a volume and the requirement is doesn't cast too much shadow on some other shape, more computation is needed. At what point do we say "now it qualifies as computation/solving"?
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
Added by David Rutten at 7:22am on November 28, 2013
"flow" into which adjacent faces (as opposed to having abrupt angles displayed between the two faces). In Maya, if I recall, they do a similar thing with "flags". I've been trying to figure out the corresponding mechanism in Rhino meshes and I'm beginning to believe that you just have to repeat vertices to make "creases" between faces. So the Rhino box has 24 "vertices" which, is apparently because each vertex is repeated for each face it belongs on - 6 faces times four vertices per face is 24 vertices. Is that really the case? It seems wasteful. I'm assuming that if you only had 8 vertices that the display would be attempting to make the edges "blend together". This means that the cube is really just six conveniently placed squares. Does Rhino even know that these six squares form a closed mesh? I know there is an "IsClosed" property on meshes. I assume it's returning false for boxes?
Aha! I was going to ask how Rhino still "knew" that the three vertices were actually one so when you dragged it you would drag "that single" vertex instead of one of three but now that I actually construct a box and drag, I see that Rhino in fact, doesn't know that and you do in fact drag one of three so that seems to back up my assumptions here.
Is this really the only way to make "creases" in 3D meshes? I just want to make sure before I spend a lot of time making my meshes based on this assumption.
I'll attach my (apparently incorrect) code FYI. It's a grasshopper plugin. Just trying to learn how to code in this system.
Thanks!
Darrell Plank…
Added by Darrell Plank at 6:53pm on December 18, 2014
ns about them.
It's a direction for Kangaroo I very much intend to continue developing - and I am still getting to grips with the possibilities and experimenting with how different optimization and fairing forces work in combination with one another, so I would value your input and experience.
For those interested in some background reading material -
[1] http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mmeyer/Research/FairMesh/implicitFairing.pdf
[2] http://mesh.brown.edu/taubin/pdfs/taubin-eg00star.pdf
[3] http://www.pmp-book.org/download/slides/Smoothing.pdf
[4] http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs468-05-fall/slides/daniel_willmore_flow_fall_05.pdf
[5] http://www.evolute.at/technology/scientific-publications.html
[6] http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/~bobenko/recentpapers.html
[7] http://spacesymmetrystructure.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/pseudo-physical-materials/
[8] http://www.evolute.at/technology/scientific-publications/34.html
[9] http://www.evolute.at/software/forum/topic.html?id=18
At the moment the Laplacian smoothing is uniformly weighted, which tends to even out the edge lengths as well as smoothing the form, which is sometimes desirable, and sometimes not. It also tends to significantly shrink meshes when the edges are not fixed.
I plan to try some of the other weighting possibilities, such as Fujiwara or cotangent weighting (see [1] and [3]), as well as other fairing approaches, such as Taubin smoothing [2], Willmore flow[4], and so on. This also has applications in the simulation of bending of thin shells.
Planar quad panels are often desirable, but I'm finding that planarization forces alone are sometimes unstable, or cause undesirable crumpling, so need to be combined with some sort of fairing/smoothing, but the different types have quite different effects, and the balance is sometimes tricky.
There's also the whole issue of meshes which are circular (I posted a demo of circularization on the examples page), or conical (this one still isn't working quite right yet), and their relationship with principal curvature grids and placement of irregular vertices, all of which is rather different when the whole form is up for change, rather than having a fixed target surface [7].
I'm also trying to get to grips with ways of making surfaces of planar hexagons, which need to become concave in regions of negative Gaussian curvature (see this discussion)
and I hope to release soon a component for calculating CP meshes, as described in [8], which I think could have many exciting construction implications.
While there are a number of well developed smoothing algorithms, their main area of application so far seems to be in processing and improving 3D scan data, so using them in design in this way is somewhat new territory. There can be structural, fabrication or performance reasons for certain types of smoothness, but of course the aesthetic reasons are also often important, and I think there are some interesting discussions to be had here about the aesthetics of smoothness.
Anyway, that's enough rambling from me, hopefully something there triggers some discussion - I'm really keen to hear about how all of you envision these tools might be used and developed.
…