nal vector.(see pic 1)
Second: Holding an abstract mesh or surface with a 3D grid structure. Basically creating 90 degree vectors on an uneven surface coming out of the object, sort of like a cactus with a grid pattern. (see Pic 2)
Third: I think #1 answers this issue: when the lines hitting the rough surface go in two different grid directions, their intersecting points are too close together. Structurally these points can be united and the vectors would be reduced. Manually deleting these lines after being baked is currently the only option. It would be so cool if there was a mathematical arrangement that would connect points that are within a certain distance to one another. (see pic 3)
…
uts.
If I change the number of polygon sides to 8 the result looks like this:
Note that there are no missing rows with 8 sides. I've tried all the numbers from 3 to 12 and in general an even-number of sides results in no missing rows, but an odd number of sides has a missing row. And for # sides 10 - 12 there are 2 missing rows.
I tried all the options for the Offset object's Corners variable which is use to make the solid outside wall, but this has no effect. I also tried rotating the cutouts a little and a lot, changing their size, height, etc., but this had no effect either. So I'm stuck on how to eliminate the missing row of cutouts.
I realize this is a more or less cosmetic problem (no one will see the bottom of the printed part unless they pick it up), but I'd like to get it fixed before I publish the final design. The attached GH file has all the components used to make these images.
…
Added by Birk Binnard at 11:58am on November 28, 2016
eries of ramps with slopes =< 10%.
Here's my pseudo-code:
1. Populate brep with random points
2. Sort points by Z values
3. Draw line from point '0' of sorted points to all other sorted points
4. Project lines down to plane of first point and cull all lines =< 5.7 degrees (10% slope)
5. Sort remaining lines by length and return line with the largest length (what I want)
6. Cull all points used to create lines =< 5.7 (step 4)
7. ??? now, I want to somehow pass remaining points from step 6 back into the loop and return the next curve that is: the largest length curve from all curves =< 5.7 degrees
I've attached the script
Thanks ya'll!
…
ry close to the screen (the model unit equivalent of a pixel deep). I am using the DrawForeground override to generate these objects...everything is fine, except that we'd also really like the users to be able to output high quality images directly from the viewport. Using the ViewPortCapture (either to file or clipboard) with higher scales can create some excellent images...but here's where we run into trouble.
The geometry that is created close to the screen through the Display Conduit tiles along with the resolution in the output image...so even though the rest of the model geometry scales up, the HUD geometry stays the same resolution but gets repeated in a grid (2x2 at 2 scale, 3x3 at 3 scale, etc.). What is interesting is any geometry created in the normal model space (say, a circle at the WorldXY) gets rendered correctly. I have also tried using the CalculateBoundingBox override, using bounding boxes for the objects drawn, but it doesn't seem to help.
I have picked up on a discussion over at the McNeel forums, but haven't gotten any guidance over there, and was curious if anyone here had any pointers.
thanks!…
Added by David Stasiuk at 3:31pm on November 24, 2015
a nodi, permette di sfruttara le potenza della programmazione, senza necessariamente avere competenze avanzate.
Con Grasshopper potrete avere accesso ai segreti della modellazione generativa, un nuovo linguaggio progettuale che sta cambiando il mondo del design, a partire dalla gioielleria, fino ad arrivare all'architettura.
Durante il corso sarà possibile comprendere le caratteristiche di funzionamento del programma e applicarlo alla creazione di oggetti complessi che potranno essere stampati in 3D, oppure renderizzati. La durata è di 30 ore e alla fine del percorso verrà rilasciato il certificato McNeel.
Il Programma
Il corso spiega i concetti base di modellazione parametrica e generativa. Nello specifico:
Interfaccia e comandi
Parametri e componenti
Interopazione con Rhinoceros
Strumenti di parametrizzazione
Combinazione dati
Data tree
Creazioni di superfici attraverso algoritmi di paneling
Teoria degli attrattori
Gestione strumenti mesh
Creazione di Cluster
Durante il corso saranno proposte esercitazioni pratiche sul campo di utilizzo preferito dallo studente
Il docente
Antonino Marsala, è un formatore certificato McNeel con alle spalle oltre 11 anni di esperienza nel settore della modellazione 3D. Oltre ad occuparsi di formazione, collabora con aziende orafe e di architettura per la messa in pratica dei principi di modellazione generativa, applicandoli a casi reali.
FAQ
Quanto costa il corso?
Il prezzo del corso è di 500,00 € + IVA che potranno essere saldati in una soluzione unica. Nel caso di iscrizione di gruppo, potrà essere applicato uno sconto.
Cosa posso portare e cosa non devo portare all'evento?
Gli organizzatori forniranno computer con il software già installato. Nel caso vogliate portare il vostro computer, vi forniremo una versione trial da 90giorni di Rihnoceros e Grasshopper
Dove posso contattare l'organizzatore per qualsiasi domanda?
antonio@mandarinoblu.com
334 24 20 203
La mia registrazione o il mio biglietto è trasferibile?
Si, purchè venga comunicato il cambiamento entro 48 ore dalla partena del corso
…
flat) and then subdivide your surface using the divide domain component and feed that into a surface box. Your base geometry, base geometry bounding box and surface boxes will all drive the box morph.
From the looks of your geometry, it appears that it is designed to nest in a particular way that isn't strictly rectilinear, but is more staggered, so that the top corner of one element fits into the bottom corner of an adjacent element. You can achieve this using the box morph, but you have to get pretty creative with how you subdivide your surface:
I'm attaching a couple of files...first of all is your definition with the changes in it to make the above. But also I used some components that I made recently (will release them in a package with a bunch more hopefully soon) called tree sloth, which helps manage data trees and lists. I used a couple of those components, so I'm also attaching the gha for those. Just copy that file into your components folder (under file-> special folders) and restart rhino/gh. The new components are just layered into different parts of the "Sets" components.
To explain what I did: you basically you want to have adjacent sub-surfaces along your guide surface to overlap at the top and bottom thirds. There are any number of ways to extract these surfaces...I just pulled out strips in each column and culled every fourth element, but shifted by one in alternating columns. So in the first column I take strips 1,2 and 3 and skip 4, take 5, 6 and 7, etc. and in the second column I start at number 3, 4, 5 and skip 6, then take 7, 8, 9, etc. Then I collect each of these batches of three strips and take the bottom left corner and upper right corner UV domains to create the target surfaces for the morph.
Hope this helps you out...…
o use these extensions in order to integrate numerous tools for analysis and simulation in the architectural process.
This course aims to develop a link between the virtual and the real context model through structural or environmental simulations, using other software or plug-ins dedicated. Through this link the virtual model receives physical properties that can further modify and adapt the initial model. This creates feedback loops that can optimize the design to provide an object responsive to environmental conditions.
Curriculum
Mesh subdivision with Weaverbird, continuous surfaces without NURBS
Genetic optimization with Galapagos, optimal search
Physical environment feedback with Diva and Geco, solar and day lighting analysis
Adding physical properties with Kangaroo Physics, interactive form-finding
Linking the parametric model with structural analysis using Karamba, structural performance simulation
Extracting data with Firefly and Kinect, 3D scanning and human movement tracking
Exchange of information between Grasshopper and other applications with Ghowl links to internet feeds or Excel files.
Schedule:
Module 04 / Grasshopper intermediate & advanced (24 h)
11 Oct – 26 Oct 2013
Fri:
Sat:
16-20
10-14
Language: Romanian
Organized by:
OAR Bucureşti – Romanian Order of Architects, Bucharest Branch
Trainers:
Ionuț Anton, idz arhitectura (ART-Authorised Rhino Trainer)
Daniela Tănase, idz arhitectura (ART-Authorised Rhino Trainer)
https://www.facebook.com/cursurigrasshopperrhinoceros
http://www.oar-bucuresti.ro/anunturi/2013/02/27/d/…
Added by Dana Tanase at 2:49am on September 5, 2013
e chosen to dive into Grasshopper. I’m about 6 months in. If some of my comments are completely off, please take that to mean that a feature is too inaccessible to a newish user rather that it’s just missing, as I may have stated.
One of my primary pain points is this. Things that can be done in other programs are invariably easier in other programs. This is a big enough issue that I doubt there’s an easy solution that an armchair qb like myself can offer up.
The interface:
I’ve used a lot of 3D programs. I’ve never encountered one as difficult as grasshopper. What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design. Yet PTC (Parametric Technology Corp.) has been doing parametric design software since 1985 and has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others.
In the early 2000's, when parametric design software was all the rage, McNeel stated quite strongly the Rhino would remain a direct modeler and would not become a parametric modeler. Trends come. Trends go. And the industry has been swinging back to direct modeling. So McNeel’s decision was probably ok. But I have to wonder if part of McNeel’s reluctance to incorporate some of the tried and proven ideas of other parametric packages doesn't have roots in their earlier declaration to not incorporate parametrics.
A Visual Programming Language:
I read a lot about the awesomeness and flexibility of Grasshopper being a visual programming language. Let’s be clear, this is DOS era speak. I believe GH should continue to have the ability to be extended and massaged with code, as most design programs do. But as long as this is front and center, GH will remain out of reach to the average designer.
Context sensitivity:
There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them.
Sliders:
I hate sliders. I understand them, but I hate ‘em. I think they should be optional. Ya, I know I can r-click on the N of a component and set the integer. It’s a pain, and it gives no feedback. The “N” should turn into the number if set. AAAnd, sliders should be context sensitive. I like that the name of a slider changes when I plug it into something. But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly. I shouldn't be able to plug in a “50” and have everything after turn red.
Components:
Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings.
And this item I’m guessing on. I’m not yet good enough at GH to know if this may have adverse effects. Reverse, Flatten, Graft, etc.; could these be context sensitive? Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?
Tighter integration with Rhino:
I'm not entirely certain what this would look like. Currently my work flow entails baking, making a few Rhino edits, and reinserting into GH. I question the whole baking thing, btw. Why isn't it just live geometry? That’s how other parametric apps work. Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset. I have to bake, offsetserf, and reinsert the geometry. I’m currently looking at the “Geometry Cache” and “Geometry Pipeline” components to see if they help. But I haven't been able to figure it out. Which leads me to:
Update all of the documentation:
I'm guessing this is an in process thing and you're working toward rolling GH from 0.9.00075 to 1.0. GH was being updated nearly weekly earlier this year. Then it suddenly stopped. If we're talking weeks before a full release, so be it. But if we're looking at something longer, a documentation update would help a lot. Geometry Cache and Geometry Pipeline’s help still read “This is the autogenerated help topic for this object. Developers: override the HtmlHelp_Source() function in the base class to provide custom help.” This does not help. And the Grasshopper Primer 2nd Ed. was written for GH 0.60007.
Grasshopper is fundamentally a 2D program:
I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen? Pretty much every 3D program in existence has this. I’m sure I can probably figure out how to deconstruct the breps, join the curves, loft, trim, and so forth. But does writing an algorithm to do what all other 3D programs do with a dialog box seem reasonable? I'm sure if you go command by command you'll find a ton on such things.
If you look at the vast majority of things done in GH, you'll note that they're mostly either flat or a fundamentally 2D pattern on a warped surface.
I've been working on a part that is a 3D voronoi trimmed to a 3D model. I've been trying to turn the trimmed voronoi into legitimate geometry for over a month without success.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/profiles/blogs/question-voronoi-3d-continued
I’ve researched it enough to have found many others have had the exact same problem and have not solved it. It’s really not that conceptually difficult. But GH lacks the tools.
Make screen organization easier:
I have a touch of OCD, and I like my GH layout to flow neatly. Allow input/output nodes to be re-ordered. This will allow a reduction in crossed wires. Make the wire positions a bit more editable. I sometimes use a geometry component as a wire anchor to clean things up. Being able to grab a wire and pull it out of the way would be kinda nice.
I think GH has some awesome abilities. I also think accessing those abilities could be significantly easier.
~p…
aph relaxation in 3D and more). There is much more already in our GitHub repos and more to be added. For getting an idea of our future direction check this lecture out. For getting a better understanding of graphs and graph theory watch this lecture and this lecture on a gamified spatial configuration process. Stay tuned for more and do not hesitate to post Python questions in the meantime.
ps. If you are having installation problems, please check the remedy suggested below:
Comment by Iman Sheikhansari on August 26, 2019 at 8:33amDelete Comment
HiIf you are encountering a problem with rhino 6 versions don't worryFollow these steps.1. Download SYNTACTIC from https://sites.google.com/site/pirouznourian/syntactic-design2. Install it and go to the installation folder, Drag & drop SYNTACTIC(green one) over your grasshopper canvas.3. Close your rhino and reopen it. 4. Type GrasshopperDeveloperSettings5. Tick the Memory load *.GHA assemblies using COFF byte arrays option6. Run grasshopper and enjoy plugin
…
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).…