ed many inverted normals, holes, bad edges, intersecting mesh faces etc and couldn't really find a good fix for all the issues.
3. I imported the file again and tried the mesh offset to thicken it just by 1mm. It gets a reasonable result but still has errors where the offset creates intersecting mesh faces. The result looks better than the Rhino offset mesh and looks like it might actually stand on a table. It was a 53Mb STL file!
Unfortunately I do not have the Objet software on my laptop otherwise I would have tried to prep it for 3d printing but I have a feeling any slicing software will struggle to process this mesh and it would be quite an expensive risk to try and print it as is.
You might be able to take the thickened mesh and cut away at the problem areas, then manually tidy up the holes created but this would be a long, manual process.
I also tried a 2mm offset but this was less successful... I think what is really needed is a sort of intelligent offset whereby in areas where the offset creates intersecting mesh geometry, the offset is smoothed off in the intersecting areas. Sorry... no idea how you could do this.
Do you want me to upload the 53Mb STL somewhere? Can I upload it to your dropbox?
Do you want me to upload the 53Mb STL somewhere? Can I upload it to your dropbox?…
Added by martyn hogg at 2:41pm on November 24, 2014
ngy (as stand alone product). But on the other hand it's widely used and is the "standard" seed for cultivating the new generations. With this in mind I rate it ... er ... hmm... higher than Generative Components. Because GC (and the ParaSolids 3d kernel that derives from Siemens/NX) may be mighty (if we forget this, this and that, he he) but is almost totally inaccessible: requires several years of training and then ... yes ... it can eat GH for breakfast as regards AEC matters (but this IS NOT the point, nor it means that GH is "worst").
The analogy is: GH is like my FireBlade (homogenous, easy) and GC is like my Panigale (lethal if not treated properly). On the other hand Honda cells 100 times more Blades than Ducati Panigales.
2. This cultivation thingy is/was NEVER understood by Bentely Systems (I had some very nasty Skype sessions on that matter, he he).A critical mistake that one, but then again Bentley doesn't like going to bed with individuals and ... maybe ... they are in the right path (a bit hilly, he he).
3. Dynamo on the other hand ... well I'm a Bentley Systems man so "by default" I dislike AutoDesk products and/or bought ones (TSplines excluded). But humor apart ... I dislike Revit for a vast variety of reasons the primary being the approach for effective parallel/team work. AECOSim on the other hand is brilliant on that matter. But Revit is dangerously close to become the BIM standard (which means - by default - that's the wrong thing).
4. Thus ... are R/GH in danger for playing a role in real-life AEC? Well ... if there was not the cultivation thing ... maybe.
In conclusion: In Planet Zorg this is the way to do AEC stuff: GH (scripts only) + GH add ons (if required) + GC (works only with scripts anyway) + AECOSim + you name it + CATIA/NX + you name it.
Moral: A classic Alice in the wonderland case that one: i.e. an amoral one, he he
take care, Jack the Ripper…
. and the bad habits die last as they say. This means that ... well ... the adaptation to more realistic (and meaningful) things later on ...
3. I can easily provide some solution (ultra expensive in real-life) to do what you want but this would be carried over solely via C# code (NOT good for you especially when this would/could be used in some sort of Thesis). To make a very long story short the "curvy" parts is highly recommended being tubes ... and the "liquid" nodes required ... well ...that's another animal UNLESS one could accept an Academic over simplification by using balls of a slightly bigger R than the adjacent tube "struts" (whilst the "iso curves" [per BrepFace] would use an even smaller R and inserting crudely into the Brep Edge "main" curves). But since actually we are talking about a secondary random "lattice" per BrepFace the "iso curves" are actually stuff made via the Surface.ShortPath Method (not sure if this exists as GH component) using random points where their number is proportionally to a given BrepFace area (freaky stuff, trust me). This yields a "uniform" random secondary "lattice" in accordance to the whole "random"/liquid appearance of the T-Splne Brep.
The above a bit naive approach (obviously out of question in real life) can yield a solid thingy if we unite all the parts and bits (Rhino takes ages to do that if we are talking big numbers of Breps) ... thus some 3d printing is doable.
In other words we do a MERO "approximation" by hoping that no German guru reads this thread, he he.
We can provide a Frankenstein type of "pro" connectivity as well: since a Brep is actually kinda a Mesh (with regard connectivity of vertices, edges, faces et all) making the connectivity trees required is not a big deal (GH has the Brep Topology thingy as well).
But the whole solution could be a black box to you: if this what you want?…
was not all there myself. Overall the night wasn't that productive so I wanted to apologize, I will do a better job in the future.
Attached to this message is the Assignment sheet for the upcoming week. Please post the picture of the models before 7:00 PM Monday 2/16.
Here is a link to the completed script from last night, as well as the Rhino file and presentation pdf.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3g6fnue93dk8iub/AAB88CNVCtC64cmz_ENLlojQa?dl=0
A few notes:
- I added two separate tags to the end of the script. One set is for the 3D model of your form, locating where the pieces originally come from. The second set is for the flattened out sections, which can be etched on your pieces to actually locate them when they are physically created. Play around a bit in the script and try to understand what is going on between the different parts.
-Baking: We went over baking in last weeks class. You right click on the component you want in the physical realm and select bake. Rhino will then ask you to select a layer to place the items on. I would suggest having two layers, one will be for cutting and one will be for etching (when you bake the tags(optional)). Once the pieces are in Rhino, you can use the Make2d command and export to AutoCad where you can laser cut (if you are unsure about this process, Google it as there are numerous tutorials).
-I would recommend using chipboard as it is the cheapest and most readily available, but don't let me chain your creativity if you come up with another material.
I look forward to seeing your guys models. See you Monday!
…
pavilion) and from that i want to fabricate it using some paper or card bored .
for modeling the pavilion i used a simple kangaroo based algorithm to generate the desired form using mesh 3d plane faces . there was no problem with this part and i was able to get the mesh from geometry out put . then i wanted to use that output mesh to panelize it and then adding tabs and the nesting and cutting to get the parts. but the problem was every tutorial i looked up were using surfaces to panelize and nest so this was the first problem to convert the mesh into a surface and then panelazing and nesting . i tried using the mesh2nurbs but it didn't work out for me . (because i needed a single surface not some poly surfaces) . (attachment | input mesh )
so i started from the beginning and tried using a surface as an input for kangaroo and thus getting a surface as an output so i did that and tried to create a surface by the Surface from points component . and the result was not good the surface was kinda messed up and the the reason was the points were not ordered well i guess . so this was another problem for me . (attachment | input surface)(picture below)
so basically i have a few main questions :
1. is there a tutorial or any topic or book or somthing that explains from 0 to 100 from design to fabrication (as an example a pavilion) ?
2. can i use the mesh to panelize and nest and then fabricate ? and are there any tips or tricks to it ?
3. is the starting from surface for me a good idea or not ?
i am extremely sorry for talking this much and i'm grateful for the time you spent on reading this .
best wishes ; Babak.
…
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…
chitects, Asymptote Architecture, Mario Bellini Architects and others to design the paneling systems.
Get a quick introduction to Rhino and Grasshopper.
Learn how to digitally reconstruction data from 3D scanners and even from regular photographs.
Experience how to print 3D models using state of the art machines.
Grant the opportunity to perform basic energy and performance analysis of your designs.
All this will be provided in a comprehensive 5 days workshop to be taught by international experts in the field as well as local researchers.
Organized by AUC American University in Cairo and GMVS Geometric Modeling and Visulization Center
…
Added by Zaghloul4d at 6:48pm on December 22, 2010
sistance of radiative and convective heat transfer through the _filmCoefficient input on the "Create Therm Boundaries" component. This filmCoefficient in W/m2K represents the "U-Value" of the air film between the edge of the THERM materials and the surrounding environment that is at the specified _temperature. The extra resistance from this air film is why the full construction U-Value that you are getting out of THERM is a lower than just the (conductivity of material) / (depth of the material). Accounting for air films is particularly important when you get constructions that have a high overall conductivity (like a single pane window), since almost all of the resistance of such a construction is due to the air films.
To elaborate further, you might have noticed that, in the example files on hydra, I set this filmCoefficient to be either "indoor" or "outdoor", which basically uses some code that I wrote to autocalculate the film coefficient for you. I take into account both the emissivity of the material at the boundary (which gives you more air film resistance for lower emissivities) as well as the orientation of the boundary in the 3D space of the Rhino model. The code I wrote will take these parameters and match them to those published in ASHRAE Fundementals, which you can see in table 1 of the first page of this PDF:
http://edge.rit.edu/content/C09008/public/2009%20ASHRAE%20Handbook
I interpolate between these values in the event that your emissivity is not 0.05, 0.2, 0.9 or the orientation of your boundary is not any one of the 5 that they give.
I know that THERM also has the capability to actually run the radiative and convective formulas that you posted, Mauricio, as opposed to just using a single film coefficient to account for all of this resistance. The running of these formulas is particularly useful is the radiant temperature at the boundary is different than the air temperature. However, as long as you are ok with this assumption that the air and radiant temperatures are the same (which is the case for all of the situations that I have encountered), the film coefficient is perfectly sufficient. If anyone ever has need for this capability of running boundary conditions that have different radiant and air temperatures, please post here and I can think of a way to implement it. I rather like the simplicity of the current interface, though, and I think that I will keep it this way until we understand the purposes for why someone would need separate radiant and air temperatures.
-Chris…
hat aren’t completely there. BIM will have to continue to evolve some more if their supporters want to get to realize the promise that still is. I can’t say much about PLM, but I would say that both BIM and PLM should be considered in future developments of GH and Rhino. David has said several times that some GH limitations regarding geometry and data structures (central to interoperability) are actually Rhino limitations. So, I wouldn’t put so much pressure on David for this, or at least I would distribute the pressure also on the core Rhino development team.
Talking about Rhino vs. GH geometry, there is one (1) wish I have: support for extrusion geometry. GH already inputs extrusion elements from Rhino, but they are converted to breps. Is not a bad thing per se. The problem is when you need to bake several breps that make the Rhino file to weight several hundred MB. When these breps are actually prismatic, extrusion-like solids, is a shame that they aren’t stored as Rhino V5’s extrusion geometry in a file of just a couple of MB (I overcame this once with an inelegant RhinoScript that wasn’t good for other people). This was one of RhinoBIM’s main arguments. We can develop a structural model made of I-beams in GH using the Extrude components. We should be able to bake them as extrusions. That would also work for urban models with thousands of prismatic massing buildings (e.g. extruded footprints). Even GH’s boxes are baked as breps! Baking boxes as extrusions could be practical for voxelated or Minecraft-like models.
(2) Collaborative network support. Maybe with worksession handling, or something that aloud project team members to work on a single definition or in external references or something alike. I know there is another Rhino limitation on this, but maybe clusters are already going in that direction?
And maybe on the plug-ins domain:
(3) Remote control panel that could be really “remote”, like from other computer or device. There is an old Android App for that, but is not only a matter of updating. I mean, it would be great to control a slider with the accelerometer of an Android phone, but to have that on an iPhone will require another development team. If GH could support networks, a remote counterpart of a RCP plug-in could be developed as a cross-platform web app. I don’t know if you can access accelerometer functionality through HTML5 already, but for now, asking a client (or an spectator or any stakeholder for that matter) to control your sliders from gestures of his/her own phone would be awesome (maybe Firefly will fill that hole?).
(4) GIS support. GH already imports .shp files. Meerkat can even access the database, but what about writing to shapefiles or generating our own with databases processed/generated in GH?
(5) SketchUp support. Not only starchitects and corporations are using GH in the AEC. There are a lot of small firms, freelancers and students interested. Most of them use SketchUp for 3D modeling (not CATIA, neither Revit). Yes, you can import/export .skp from Rhino, but if GH could support nested block at bake time (also mentioned by others), it could write .skp files with complex relations of blocks (that are called components in SketchUp) and nested groups, going beyond what Rhino can export.
(6) Read/Write other formats. There are some challenges with proprietary formats that are not completely supported by Rhino, but they’re still a lot of open formats that are relevant to the fields of GH users, like stl and ply for 3D-printing. It could be nice to write mesh colors to a ply for 3D-printing a colored prototype based on GH colors. There are others, like IGES, STEP, COLLADA, etc. and 2D, like svg, odg and pdf. Some of them could offer special formatting options like custom data that the format supports but nobody uses just because is impractical to access this from direct modeling environments (but not from visual programming).
--Ernesto…