rea.
(GH screenshot, Excel screenshot, and various model space screenshots in jpg below)
organize%20by%20floor_v4_for_online_question.jpg
(GH definition) : organize%20by%20floor_v4.gh
The user controls the length of the floor plate with a slider while the width is taken from Excel as the largest width value among the rooms.
The rooms are prioritized sequentially. (e.g. 'A' is prioritized above 'B', 'B' is prioritized above 'C', etc.) This essentially means that is the floor plate gets to small to accommodate all room, the last room (in this case 'D') would be first to move to higher floors, then 'C', and then 'B' as necessary. 'A' would always remain on the first floor plate.
My thought process: Compare the added lengths of different room combinations that could potentially be adjacent to one another to the user determined floor plate length. Using dispatch components, create a 'flowchart' of If/Then scenarios that tests these comparisons and seek for a room configuration that minimizes room displacement. Once the definition knows what should move where, the rooms are moved using vertices that are put together from the room dimensions, as all movement is relative to the other spaces.
My problem: This definition is highly customized for the scenario of having only 4 rooms, but I would like to create a definition that performed a similar operation on any potential 'n' amount of rooms. The problem with that is that it would require the use of a varying amount of components, as increased number of rooms would need more length summations, length comparisons, and embedded dispatch paths. Is what I am trying to do possible? Can grasshopper create a varying number of components based on the list length of rooms?
Please help!! Thanks!! …
Added by Drew Brooks at 11:02am on January 22, 2014
e it as the same type. It refers to a different type definition apparently.
Error:
error: [A]MassPix cannot be cast to [B]MassPix. Type A originates from '7ea7fec0-99c5-49a8-ae80-af752ac2be94, Version=0.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' in the context 'LoadFrom' at location 'C:\Users\pnourian\AppData\Local\Temp\7ea7fec0-99c5-49a8-ae80-af752ac2be94.dll'. Type B originates from 'fd0b2126-e10f-49de-9fc9-5504405d4135, Version=0.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null' in the context 'LoadFrom' at location 'C:\Users\pnourian\AppData\Local\Temp\fd0b2126-e10f-49de-9fc9-5504405d4135.dll'. (line: 82)
This is the case:
in component A:
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal x As Object, ByVal y As Object, ByRef A As Object) Dim kjh As New MassPix(2.1, 2.3, 4, 5) A = kjh End Sub
'<Custom additional code> Public Class MassPix Private x As Double Private y As Double Private S As Integer Private K As Integer Sub New(xu As Double, yv As Double, SZ As Integer, KL As Integer) x = Xu y = yv s = Sz k = Kl End Sub End Class '</Custom additional code> End Class
and in component B:
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal x As Object, ByVal y As Object, ByRef A As Object) Dim ABC As MassPix = CType(x, MassPix)
End Sub
'<Custom additional code> Public Class MassPix Private x As Double Private y As Double Private S As Integer Private K As Integer Sub New(xu As Double, yv As Double, SZ As Integer, KL As Integer) x = Xu y = yv s = Sz k = Kl End Sub End Class '</Custom additional code> End Class
the file is attached
ANY HELP IS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED! …
tter to call them bug. Yes because when I run Galapagos to solve the problem it sometimes solve the problem completely but other times just in part. The problem is that with this kind of exercises that I'm doing you can check that there is a problem, but I'm studying it for my thesis and the goal will be to optimize a building in a ecological way, and the inputs will be more and sure will be hard to understand if Galapagos is working in the right way or not.
Therefore, what I want to ask is if someone can maybe check my files that I will upload and tell me if it run in the right way, maybe also trying it different times because like I said sometimes works in the right way and others not, leaving an element outside the calculation.
The simulation to run in the files are two, in the first there are 4 squares which I calculate the sommatory of the areas using the REGION UNION and doing it Galapagos should optimize the value giving me the minimum area between the squares. Sometimes it calculate it leaving apart one square. Anyway the right results should be to overlap all the squares.
The second one I have a catenary curve and 3 points and moving some slides Galapagos should adapt the curve to this 3 points. This simulation didn't give me any problem, so the problem should be the first.
Here is the definition of both the simulation.
I hope someone can solve my problem.
I also hope this exercises could be usefull for someone that is also starting to use Galapagos!
Thanks for your time and I will wait for your answers.…
o I decided to rewrite my code to be more specific. Here I'm posting the process hoping it would help to understand the situation:
I have a base form that is going to grow based on different factor which for now I've simplified it by removing deflectors and let it grow in all possible directions and forms, which are every corner that is free.
First Step:
Second Step:
Third Step:
Forth Step:
Grasshopper Code:
As you see from step 4 it starts to collide itself in some points. Im trying to find a way to evaluate newly created breps with previously generated ones and remove new brep items that has collisions with previous ones.
I'm a beginner and I tried every possible solution that I found searching this forum. But none of them helped me. I would be so pleased if you help me to figure out how to handle it.
…
tersect) and I'm working on something that provides me an operation I will make several times.As you can see in the file, it works well, what I do is extend the line until you intersect and then get the 4 possible options.But there is a problem I need to fix: Depending on the situation of the curve must be extended on one side or another. And I would need that the resulting curve keep the original end in place. You guys guys have any idea how it could tell the program to detect which way you have to extend the curve? What depending on proximity or something ...?Thx u all!…
ple (surfacic volumes with flat faces), but can contains faces with more than 4 points.
I'm creating the Breps (from a polyline representing the base, followed by Extrusion (given an height) and Cap Hole) and I want to extract all the geometry of each surfaces (3D coordinates of all vertices of all surface).
The problem is I want also to keep all object's faces orientation (to be sure of what is inside or what is outside), and export this geometry to a 3D file (in pythonscript).
I can't make assumption on what is what, only on the Brep consistency...
But I didn't find a good way to do this using components or rhinoscript (python) on Brep primitives and even on surfaces primitives.
It seems that the way the vertices are described in surface is not consistent after deconstruction (or by duplication or reconstruction). For some surfaces they turn clock-wise (CW) but reverse way (CCW) for others.
For Grasshopper component I tried to use "Deconstruct Brep" followed by "Explode" on surfaces to get all vertice of the faces (and their coordinates) (see attached file). You can visualize each vertice of each face using the sliders (Face index, Vertice index).
You can see that some face's vertices are rotating CW, others CCW...
For Rhinoscript (which is what I'll need to use later) I tried to use several approaches to decompose from Brep to vertices (or segment) but with the same bad result since the moment I must use the surface primitives...
Could you please give me an advise for the way I should do this, using component and/or rhinoscript.
Thanks by advance.
Best regards.
…
to parametric design workflows. More information on syntactic design methodology:
My PhD dissertation (see chapters 3 & 4)
Designing with Space Syntax
Syntactic Design Methodology
For more information, videos, news and updates you can visit the following website.
See a video demo-tutorial here.
The plugin is available for download here: https://genesis-lab.dev/products/syntactic/
This plugin is completely compatible with SpiderWeb for Grasshopper and we hereby thank Richard Schaffranek for all we have learned from this extremely useful plugin.
NEW VERSION WAS RELEASED ON JANUARY 25, 2015.
UPDATE: Genesis Lab [webpage][website] is to modernize, open-source, and develop the toolkit starting in December 2021. Stay tuned for updates through my YouTube Channel and ResearchGate. …
rera de Arquitectura CEM | presenta la cordial invitación al Curso de Diseño Computacional a realizarse en nuestros laboratorios de Arquitectura y Diseño Industrial del Campus Estado de México.
Fecha: jueves 21, viernes 22 de 18: a 22:00 Hrs y sábado 23 de 8:00 a 15:00 Hrs febrero 2013. 15 Horas.
El taller está orientado a estudiantes y profesionales de la Arquitectura, Arte, el Diseño e Ingeniería.
COSTO:
Alumnos Tec o EXATEC con una cuota de $2000.00 pesos.* Estudiantes EXTERNOS y profesores TEC $3000.00*, Estudiantes de posgrado externos $3800.00* y Profesionales externos $4250.00 pesos.*
OBJETIVO GENERAL:
Alfabetización sobre lectura y escritura de herramientas computacionales para el desarrollo de la Arquitectura, Diseño e Ingeniería.
Objetivos específicos:
1. Comprenderá los conceptos metodológicos del Diseño Computacional y generativo.
2. Aplicará las metodologías en el diseño, análisis y despiece de una cubierta (celosía, muro, losa, fachada o mobiliario) con base en un espacio existente en el campus.
3. Desarrollará los conceptos de programación orientada a objetos (POO Intermedia)
4. Generará algoritmos y análisis en Grasshopper sobre el ejemplo de praxis.
5. Desarrollo de documentación y presentación de resultados.
6. Fabricación del objeto, escala por definir.
Requisitos: Conocimiento de alguna plataforma CAD/CAM/CAE.
Profesor:
Arq. David Hernández Melgarejo.
http://bioarchitecturestudio.wordpress.com
Mayor información:
Kathrin Schröter, Dipl.-Ing./Arch. (D)
Directora de la Carrera de Arquitectura e Ingeniería Civil
Escuela de Diseño, Ingeniería y Arquitectura
Campus Estado de México
TEC DE MONTERREY
Tel.: (52/55) 5864 5555 Ext. 5685 o 5750
Enlace intercampus:80.236.5685
Fax: (52/55) 5864 5319
kschroter@itesm.mx
www.itesm.mx
…
http://www.pilkington.com/) dominates the planar market. Charges "around" 1K Euros per m2 for a "plain" system. Personally in bespoke projects I design my own stuff but due to economies of scale ... they cost a bit more (but they look far more sexier, he he) . On the other hand only in a bespoke project I could dare to suggest such a solution (for a large scale building we are talking lots and lots of dollars).
3. Several scales below (aesthetics) you can find static alu systems (either structural or semi-structural):
Or hinged systems (either structural or semi-structural) capable to adapt in contemporary double curvature facades/roofs/envelopes/cats/dogs etc etc ... pioneered worldwide many years ago by my best friend Stefanos Tampakakis (everybody in UAE knows that genius man: http://www.alustet.gr/company.html):
4. With the exception of some paranoid things that Guru Stefanos does for Zaha these days we are talking about planar "facets" (obviously a triangle is such a planar facet). The current trend is: the more edges the better (humans excel in vanity matters). But achieving planarity in, say, quads (like yours) it adds another "restriction" on what you are doing. Until recently Evolute Tools Pro was the only answer. But right now ... well let's say that in short time you'll be greatly surprised by some WOW things in this Noble Forum, he he.
5. MERO (and obviously custom systems) can adapt (at almost no extra charge) in anything imaginable. But in a bespoke building ... well.. you know ultra rich people: they don't want MERO anymore since "everybody" does MERO solutions. Vanity, what else?
6. Smart Glass would become a must in the years to come: Eco-Architecture MUST dominate everything you do. On the other hand spending millions to do some extra WOW stuff (Vanity) ... it doesn't look to me very Eco-Friendly/Whatever ... but let's pretend so, he he.
7. I'm Architect but a bit different from the norm: for instance I smoke cigars (highly politically incorrect stuff) I always talk openly (ditto) and I ride lethal bikes (ditto).
may the Force (as always the Dark Option) be with you: go out there and kill them all.
best, Peter
…
n fact) according a vast variety of "modes" PLUS the required clash detection (ALWAYS via trigonometry). In plain English: outline any collection of Breps and "apply" a truss that is topologically sound (planarization in case of quads etc is an added constrain). PLUS outline/solve what comes "next" after that truss (like the planar glazing "add-on" brackets of yours [ the ones that need redesign, he he], or some roofing/facade skin system [secondary supports, corrugated sheet metal, insulation, final cladding, dogs and cats])
2. Imaging doing this in real life (nothing to do with "abstract" formations of "lines" or "shapes" or whatever). This means primarily adopting a BIM umbrella: in plain English AECOSim, Revit or Allplan (I'm a Bentley man so I use AECOSim + Generative Components). This also means using "in-parallel" a top MCAD app for 1:1 details, FEA/FIM and the vast paraphernalia required for real-life studies destined for real-life projects (made with real-life money by real-life people). My choice: CATIA/Siemens NX.
3. What to send to Microstation (if not using Generative Components, that is) and/or CATIA? In what "state"? To do what exactly? For instance even if you could design this feature driven tensile membrane anchor custom node in Rhino (you can't) it could be 100% useless in CATIA:
4. Imaging masterminding ways to send them nested instance definitions of ... er ... a coordinate system (all what you need). In plain English: since is utterly pointless to send them nested blocks that can't been parametrically controlled (variations/modifications/PLM management/BOM/specs etc etc)... send them simply the "instructions" to place coordinate systems of components that ARE parametrically designed within Microstation and/or CATIA (classic feature driven design approach blah blah). So GH solves topology et all (working on data imported via, say, Excel sheets related with sizes of components etc etc) and sends to Microstation simply this (a myriad of "this" actually):
I do hope that the gist of the "method" (the ONLY way to invite GH to the party) is clear.
best, Peter…