pper, it appears that half of the surfaces are now flipped (normals now pointing to the inside of the polysurface). I've tried to use a guide surface, I tried offsetting points along the normal to test for inclusion and then flip. I've even tried to flip normals manually by mutliplying the normal by -1.0...no matter what I try, can't seem to get all surfaces to be in the same orientation. Any insight would be appreciated...
Using:
Rhino SR6 on win xp
Grasshopper version 0.6.0019
Thanks!
~BB~
here's an image of what i get when i do the dir command in rhino:
here's what i see when i display normal vectors in grasshopper:
…
ls and methods of Design Thinking and connected approaches you will discover needs and provide solutions starting with the questions above. You will work with a global company on a real challenge! You will learn Design Thinking by doing with two international professors and experts! You will collaborate in interdisciplinary teams from Barcelona and Berlin and pitch your idea! The winning ideas will be rewarded!
…
to y Sobejano office and they told me that the geometry was generated "manually" with no algorithmic logic behind o.O Voronoi is becoming a style to imitate, not a tool to solve (or propose solutions) to real problems...anyway the interior is interesting. I promise to visit it when finished (it's almost there...). …
Added by Ángel Linares at 2:51pm on January 13, 2014
ion technologies offer a completely new way to think and approach design, architecture and urban planning.
. . .
The ADVANCED ARCHITECTURE SUMMER SCHOOL organised in Paris by VOLUMES coworking, NOUMENA architecture and architect/teacher/designer Francesco Cingolani in partnership with the prestigious École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées is a 3 weeks learning experience designed as an immersive journey in social innovation, computational design, digital fabrication and collaborative culture.
Details and informations for applicants> volumesparis.org/summerschool2015…
t in place). Wooden things are made (one thing anyway, but the rest are piece of cake). Panels rotate now (in real time, don't disable the block placer at least as regards the rotation angle). Note: turn OFF Levels that disturb you (like the one related with Axis).
Bad news: the panel rotation policy sucks (because the panels are initially designed in order "to click" each other). Clash issues within the "click areas" appear as well related with the side covers (easy fix: I'll do some redesign ASAP). More soon.
Ugly news: regarding controlling the whole topology (i.e. the fully parametric deployment of ALL beamAxis Curves (edit C# ) ) ... well that's challenging because GH is not designed having in mind individual control of items in collections (Lists, Trees etc). 99% of the posted cases/questions/examples that I see here are cases where people are applying some kind of "global" logic - like using some attractors or some other kind of stuff. In this case (and in 99% of typical purely engineering cases, that's not good enough).
Anyway, It's doable but requires some re-thinking.
PS: Obviously this case address the other question of yours related with the vertical panels - the one that David R replied as well (but can Rhino "stretch" blocks in one direction? I'll investigate that one).
PS: of course the carriage (and the wheels) rotates with the panels as well (rather stupid) ... but that is fixed in V5 by using a far more elaborated block structure , he he
best, Peter…
these days resemble more to "optimized machines" than "good old brick walls with a roof".
Back to people:
If people starting their career as engineers are stuck/guided solely to the graphical way (like learning to drive a car with an auto-box: missing by 99% of what driving is all about) it could be quite a shock for them to adapt to the brave new world - or the animal farm (depends on the point of view). That said, the parametric way is in an infancy state: just wait a few years to taste first hand what really brave new world means (wait for the next CATIA [in smoke phase at present time] for instance: a bit science fiction by current standards).
If people are already working as members of pro teams in some practice ... well ... it's hard to imagine any benefit of components VS code (especially regarding team work, optimization, alternatives, updates/upgrades, common development language platform - having in mind many other CAD/MCAD apps etc etc etc). For instance ... just consider including that humble SolidWorks (C#) in your arsenal (and a lot of other apps).
On the other hand 99% of the whole parametric thing IS NOT some sort of idea (not a big deal: anyone can have a million ideas) ... it's the data management/handling itself (in our case: DataTrees, what else?). Find ANY pro who could suggest dealing with Trees via components instead of code (masochists excluded).
On the other hand what cryptic means it's a matter of personal view: for instance speaking Mandarin is indeed cryptic (at least to me, although I do some business there) but almost 2B others find that ... quite natural, he he.
Finally and most importantly: sampling some geometry to do some abstract thing and design a real-life building out of them ... well there's a colossal distance in complexity, meaning that theory and reality differ vastly.
But there's always the choice: if you want to chat with a mirror, don't listen to me.…
combination is nearly 0 (of course with 1 try). You have about 100 (?) dimensions... its just impossible to do it well. Even with billions of random genotypes for 1st generation.
Its like 1:googol (10^100) to succeed. If youll try and run it on your pc, youll probably consume all the energy in universe, and it will take longer time than our universe will exist.
Sorry :(
EDIT : As David wrote in his post - every added dimension results with almost half of "success ratio". So as with one slider you have e.g. 1:2 ratio of success, with 100 sliders you have :
1:633825300114114700748351602688 (2^99)
To somebody more familiar with math -> correct me if Iam wrong :)…
intersection-elements (01/AA etc)
To get a result from RInt i do have to flatten the first set and do have to graft the second. Therefore i can only retrieve the parent-information from the second set.
I hope i could explain my problem and somebody has an easy solution on hand...
Best regards,
Heiko
PS. ObjAtts in the attached files is from human…
Added by Heiko Wöhrle at 10:11am on October 27, 2016
ty lots as extrusions with their height depending on perimeter length. Then I added a 'Cull Duplicates' group to avoid properties that had duplicate 'Area' centroid points. That reduced the number of properties from 364 down to 331, though five of those have 'Area' values between 88 and 205, ten have values less than 500 while the average is ~1.3 million!
So the data is still suspect. Some appear to be nested inside of others? But using those 331 properties, I now find 32 that intersect the 'Zoning Districts'. But that's not the same as a list of properties that span two or more 'Zoning Districts'... Not having fun anymore. :)
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 10:40am on January 14, 2016