idad del entorno construido contemporáneo y la sociedad. Creo que deja muy claro una inquietud mía respecto de cómo las herramientas de diseño paramétrico pueden ayudar a ser responsivo a la complejidad que supone generar, mediante el diseño, un metabolismo urbano circular en un sistema de alta complejidad que incluye ciudad/naturaleza ya no en la distinción clásica de naturaleza apartada y sublime sino como un todo, en donde inclusive la sola idea o concepto de naturaleza, atenta con con la simbiosis que debiese existir entre estos dos ámbitos tradicionalmente separados.
2. Me llamó la atención la claridad de la analogía que hace entre genotipo y fenotipo y componentes adaptativos en superficies populadas. Para mi esto es la esencia del diseño paramétrico y refleja muy bien también la idea de "field" o campo. El amarre o restricción del componente y sus estructuras pueden generar entonces una variabilidad y difereniación infinita en cuanto posee relaciones asociativas que se adaptan a condiciones que varían en tiempo/lugar/forma. Esta idea, considero, está en el centro de una preocupación personal que es cómo diseñar efectivamente la sustentabilidad. Sin duda lo más sustentable sería no diseñar algo dos veces sino mas bien adaptarse y responder al cambio.
3. Otro tema que me llamó la atención es la abolición de sub-sistemas funcionales, lo cual rompe con el paradigma moderno. Estaríamos entonces frente aun gran sistema en donde desde el inicio al final, todos sus componentes están relacionados efectivamente, en el entendido de que ninguno permanece estacionario o insensible al cambio, si es que otro componente varía.
Atte
…
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).…
or 3. What is important is the direction and position of end curves (where a point is connected to only one line). The direction will give the orientation of the foot. The position its position as it is used as Anchor in Kangaroo.
So you will have this mesh. There are some mesh overlaps, which are not important if points are not coincidents.
U and V curves are used for springs. Mesh is used for inflation. Points (from mesh or lines for gravity).
With no inflation (don't use it at the beginning), constant stiffness for springs and not cutoff the shape is like that :
In order to have more equal size in lateral I apply a cutoff. I also add differents strength of string on u (along legs) direction, I use genome (grafted) in order to have multiple sliders. After that a bit of inflation and it is done.
…
other ordering mechanisms. If you feed layer names in explicitly, output is grouped by layer. If you feed multiple types or multiple object name filters, output is grouped by these instead, following standard data tree behavior. There are a number of ways to achieve layer-based sorting of objects using existing components:
Letting anything be organized by the layer-palette order is extremely sticky, since it can be re-ordered on the fly by various sort mechanisms. See more on this topic in my conversation with Tim Halvorson in the comments on the Human Group page. As it stands now I do not alphabetize layers in the layer table component as you say - I use the layer index, so that as new layers are added/rearranged, the entire order of the set doesn't change in unpredictable ways. If layer sort order is preferable to you, you can use the simple one-line script I provided Tim in order to retrieve the sort index and use it to sort your layers. My priority for both object order and layer order in the components is to minimize unnecessary changes/refreshes/event listening by returning everything exactly as the SDK gives it to me.
(3) I've added the Include Locked and Include Hidden options to the latest release attached to this post. However, this only pays attention to hidden objects, not hidden layers. I do not want to include a toggle for "Include Hidden Layers" because this would force the dynamic pipeline to expire every time a layer's visibility changed, which I do not want - for most purposes this would cause unnecessary recomputing. However, with the components as they exist now, you can drive the dynamic pipeline with a layertable set to auto update, like so:
This has the effect I think you are after, which is to ignore objects on layers that are hidden - and recognize them as soon as the layer is turned on.
…
ot in parallel: simpleFoam, and the the it converges after 1769 iterations:
Several new folders were created in the case folder:
I opened the case file in PareView, which gives the following error message:
Nevertheless, the results can still be visualized, but I'm not sure if the visualization is correct:
... and additional error messages keep coming out:
Hope you can kindly advise if the results are correct and what to do with the error message during visualization in ParaView.
Thank you very much!
…
fsetted (to create an inner ceiling), and on the ground i lofted the curves also(floor).
I would like to create a random pattern of points on the ground-surface that pulls the off-setted, "inner roof" towards the ground, creating pillars resembeling to the bird skull section (picture 3). Preferrably in several "floors" if possible.. (like in the picture)
If anyone has a better suggestion on how to create the bird-skull structure inside my shapes, you are very welcome to say so!
I have only worked with grasshopper for a couple of weeks, so if you explain something, please do it step, by step, so that I can follow:)
Peace, thank you and keep up the good work everybody!!
/s …
400m swatch from a point somewhere in Catalunya.
The three APIs used were the following:
Google Elevations API
Mapquest Open Elevation Service API
Geonames SRTM3 API
I also tested the USGS Elevation Service, but I was looking for API which allowed me to query globally.
Here are the results (441 locations queried):
As a side note, Grasshopper reports the requests for data came in at*:
1.9s for Google Elevations API
3.5s for Geonames
413ms for Mapquest
*this is not only measuring the request, but also has to take into account the request throttling due to the various API limitations.
As you can see, there is quite a difference in the data, especially when looking at what Google returns. It is pretty clear that Mapquest and Geonames use very similar data coming from the SRTM3 dataset. This dataset is at 3 arc-seconds (appx 90m) for most of the globe (up to 60ºN and 56ºS). The resolution is 1 arc-second for the United States. Google reportedly uses hundreds of data sources to achieve a finer resolution, though this comes at a cost. Geonames and Mapquest put a limit of how many locations you can query at one time, with no limit per day (that I could find). Google puts a limit of 2500 requests per day, with each request having up to 512 locations, or a total of 25,000 locations.
The comparison was made possible by some of the little utility components which are included in gHowl, namely the XYZ->GEO component which translates points in Rhino/Grasshopper to WSG84 coordinates. …
ulio´s latest bakeAttribute, so it also sets a specified layercolor?
Thanks,
Phillip
Reply by Giulio Piacentino 1 hour ago
Hi Phillip
if possible, you should try to modify layer colors independently from baking. A layer can have only one color, but many objects.
To modify a layer color, use something along these lines:
if(!string.IsNullOrEmpty(layer) && !color.IsEmpty) { int n = RhinoDoc.ActiveDoc.Layers.Find(layer, true); if(n < 0) return; Rhino.DocObjects.Layer l = RhinoDoc.ActiveDoc.Layers[n]; l.Color = color; A = l.CommitChanges(); }
Can I also ask you to start a new discussion next time? I hope this helps,
- Giulio
…
tion for how a piece of paper can be bent into different shapes through a special folding technique. The idea is that 1) I create a module of the repeating pleating pattern in grasshopper, 2) create a rectangular surface through lofting which can change size and shape by pulling the control points of the side railings which created this surface, and 3) finally, array the initial module onto this malleable plane, and be able to see the different shapes that can result from changing the control points on the plane.
Here is an image of the module and one possible orientation of the foldable structure that I am after.
I have written a GH file for controlling the folding of the individual module. Although it achieves the end result, it doesn't quite fold correctly, and so doesn't achieve my purpose of clear visualization. (I am currently using version 6.0059.) The file is attached, please take a look and if possible, advice me on what I can do to make it fold correctly. Here is the file : origami-module.gh .
I have tried to use the tutorial Parametric Truss from Design Reform to array my modules onto a plane, but it doesn't work for me. (Most likely because my base form is not a rectangle? I am not sure.) Any help on how to do this with my module would be wonderful.
I have tried to create a plane that can change shape by moving the control points. In my method, I used 2 lines to loft. However, this only gives me two control points. I want to be able to control other parts of the line as well, in order to change the elevation of different parts of the line.
Any help and advice on this is very appreciated! I am also constrained by time (I have until the middle of July to finish this) and timely advice would be wonderful.
…
mple:
I wish to populate a rectangle with some random points, but I need them to be more dense at the base of the rectangle and then linearly getting more and more sparse towards the top.
This is how I worked it around:
1) first I have created a triangular prism,
2) then I've populated its volume with some random points
3) and finally I've projected them on the plane I'm wishing to populate.
But I don't really like the final result since the points are not as nicely spaced as if they were produced by the "Populate 2d" command. They look kind of "clumpy":
Do you have any better idea?
The best thing would be to be able to put a grayscale bitmap underneath and use it as a "density map"...
Here you have the .gh file I made:
prism.gh
Thank you very very much for the help! :)
By the way:
While I was preparing my 3d random distribution of points I've spotted a weird behaviour of the random command:
Even if the seeds are all different, for some values of them the points still belong to some common planes...
To solve that I had to jitter the output of one of the Random components.
I suppose this is a weakness of the pseudorandom generator implemented in the random component, isn't it?…