tions or components.
Participants will learn concepts of object oriented programming and essential syntax of C# to endeavour into personally extending cad toolsets. The workshop will focus on introducing the .NET language C# and the Software Development Kit (SDK) RhinoCommon.
Topics
- use of Script Component within Grasshopper
- explanation to the .NET Framework
- introduction to RhinoCommon SDK
- basics of imperative / object-oriented programming
- data types, operators, properties
- variables, arrays, lists, enumerations
- methods
- objects, classes
- control structures: conditional statements (if, else, switch)
- control structures: loops (for, foreach, while, do)
- walk-through iterative und recursive code-samples
- use of RhinoCommon Geometry class library: creation, sorting, editing of Geometry (Points, Vectors, Curves, Surfaces)
- adding (baking) geometry to the active Rhino 3DM Document, including attributes (Name, Layer, Colors etc.)
- introduction to the Integrated Development Environment MS Visual Studio Express Edition
- compiling code to dll/gha files (plug-ins) / making your own Grasshopper custom components
Grasshopper wird auf der .NET Softwareplattform entwickelt, und kann ebenso wie das CAD Programm Rhinoceros mit "RhinoCommon", einem Software Development Kit, erweitert werden.
Dieser Kurs richtet sich an Designer, Architekten, Ingenieure und Techniker, welche mit dem grafischen Algorithmus-Modellierer "Grasshopper3d" sowie dem CAD-Programm "Rhinoceros" bereits vertraut sind und einen Einstieg in die Programmierung von Geometrie erlernen möchten.
Der Kurs Grasshopper II folgende Grundlagen:
Kennenlernen der Script Componente
Erläuterung zum .NET Framework
Einführung in RhinoCommon SDK
Grundlagen d. imperativen / objektorientierten Programmierung
Datentypen, Operatoren, Eigenschaften
Variablen, Reihen, Listen, Aufzählungen
Methoden
Objekte und Klassen
Kontrollstrukturen: Bedingte Ausführung, Schleifen
praxisnahe iterative und rekursive Code-Beispiele für generatives Design unter Verwendung der RhinoCommon Geometrie Klassenbibiliothek - Punkt- und Vektorgeometrie erstellen, sortieren, bearbeiten, Flächen und Netze erstellen - Geometrie in das Rhino 3DM Dokument baken, einschließlich Attribute (Name, Layer, Color)
Einführung in die Entwicklungsumgebung MS Visual Studio Express Edition
Kompilieren von Programmerweiterungen (plug-ins) als Komponenten (custom components)
Details, Anmeldung:
www.vhs-stuttgart.de
Trainer Peter Mehrtens
Kursdauer: 3 Tage x 8 h
Freitag, 21.02.2014, 9:00-17:00 Uhr Samstag, 22.02.2014, 9:00-17:00 Uhr Sonntag, 23.02.2014, 9:00-17:00 Uhr Ort: VHS Stuttgart, Fritz-Elsas-Str. 46/48
Teilnahmegebühr 510,00 €…
ssibili e facili da usare. Il corso parte dalle basi della programmazione di arduino fino ad arrivare all’interazione tra un oggetto fisico ed un imput informativo. tutor: Gianpiero Picerno Ceraso
Programma: I giorno Introduzione al Phisical Computing, input digitali e analogici, le basi del linguaggio di programmazione, esempi applicativi; led, pulsanti, fotorestistenze, servo motore, sensore di temperatura, di flessione, sensori di movimento, potenziometri.
II giorno Arduino ethernet, uso di un relè per carichi elevati, accelerometro, introduzione a Processing, interazione di Arduino e Processing, Introduzione a Grassoppher e Firefly e interazione con Arduino.
orario corso: 10:00 – 13:00 e 14:00 – 17:00 (pausa pranzo 13:00 – 14:00) costo: 150€ + IVA deadline: 13 marzo numero minimo di partecipanti: 3
Per iscrizioni scrivi a info@medaarch.com specificando nome, cognome, mail, recapito telefonico e il nome del corso al quali sei interessato. In seguito all’invio del modulo di pre-iscrizione, i partecipanti riceveranno una mail contenente tutte le specifiche di pagamento.
Per seguire il cluster su Arduino è necessario installare il software Arduino 1.0.5 al seguente linkhttp://arduino.cc/en/Main/Software#.Ux3hQj95MYE facendo attenzione a scaricare quello relativo al proprio sistema operativo, Windows 32 o 64 e Mac OS.
Software necessari solo per una parte del corso: Processing 2.1.1 https://processing.org/download/?processing
Rhino 5 http://www.rhino3d.com/it/download Grasshopper for Rhino5http://www.grasshopper3d.com/page/download-1Firefly http://fireflyexperiments.com/
Il cluster rientra in un fitto calendario di attività formative organizzate dalla Medaarch per lanno 2013-2014.…
you will need to deal with all of the curves that intersect the boundry curve, but you will also need to sort through all of the circles inside because the planar surface algorithm won't sort those out for you. The good news is that because you are using circles and linear segments, you can use "pure" geometry equations for some of these intersections instead of relying on NURBS curve "physical" intersections. In the end this means faster and also "more" reliable intersections (especially with the circles).
Method 1: Dealing with everything as a phyisical curve...
First things first, i guess the "easiest" way to do this would be to translate everything into an OnCurve derived class, and then use the IntersectCurve method to find the intersections. You will need to sort through the resulting ArrayON_XEVENT to find the parameter of each intersection. There should always be 2 intersections, and you're always going to be interested in the intersections of the circle not the boundry curve.
To trim the curves, you'll want to use the Split method along with one of the parameters on the curve that you retrieved from the intersection. The only issue is that the split method gets a bit complicated when using it on closed curves. You could either split at both parameters that you retrieved from the intersection results, then sort through the 3 resulting curves to join the two that you need. Or move the start point of the circle to where one of the intersection points happened, translate the other intersection point to the new curve parameter (ie the parameter will be a different number, but it will be physically in the same place), then split with that new curve parameter.
Method 2: Try and work with the circles as circles
Because you can tell if a circle intersects something by seing if the distance to its center point is less than the radius of the circle, this might be a quicker way to go. If you have the boundry curve as an OnCurve derived class, then you can use the GetClosestPoint method and use all of the center points for each of the circles. The nice thing is that after the 3Dpoint in, and the parameter on the curve that you'll get out, you have the option of supplying a maximum distance. If you do supply that value (use the radius of the circles), then you'll only get a result when the distance is less than or equal to that value. In which case there will be an intersection.
To go even further, you can treat the segments of the boundry curve each as a line, and find the closest point/distance to that. That's maybe more complex than your looking to go, but speed wise, it might just be worth it. Take a look at the following link for more code/discussion on the subject.
http://www.codeguru.com/forum/showthread.php?t=194400
Part 2: Circle-Circle intersections
If you're going to want to make a planar surface out of those circes and the boundry curve, then you'll need to resolve all of the intersections that you have there. Again this is probably something that would be best taken care of by doing some distance tests between the center points of all the circles and seeing if that distance is less than the radius your using. After you've found circles that intersect, you can be try intersecting the curves using the same method mentioned above, or even manually generating the intersection with some trig, but ultimately creating a final result might take a bit of work, especially where you have more than two circles intersecting. The "lazy" way out of this is what's used by the curve boolean command, which is to take each individual curve, make a planar surface from that individual curve, and use standard Rhino booleans to get the result. Luckily you're looking for the union of all those areas, which will be the easiest to create and deal with. After you create the planar surface of each one (RhUtil.RhinoMakePlanarBreps), you can use either RhUtil.RhinoBooleanUnion or the more specialized version, RhUtil.RhPlanarRegionUnion. Note that RhPlanarRegionUnion only takes 2 breps at a time and needs the plane of the intersection.…
as the design table? I think this could be 'drawn' and constrained in Inventor in a lot less time. I know the GH model would have a lot of flexibility, but in this case, what can you do with it that wasn't provided by an Inventor model?
Only the 27 lines mentioned were modeled in Rhino, the rest is modeled with GH.
The 5 hrs involved thinking about the approach, defining vertical lines, tilts, elevations, pitch of the roof, intersections.
Once I had decided what my approach would be, and tested the logic with those first lines, points and data path arrangements, it only took one more hour to get to this:
Which is actually quite fast, compared to MCAD workflows.
If you already have components (columns, beams, etc.) modeled and ready to drop into a project, of course it is lightning fast to model simple projects like this example.
I am not as much interested in those situations, because improving efficiency is straightforward and obvious.
I'm more interested in situations where there are no pre-defined families of objects, in which case you need to start from scratch.
The GH model I'm showing is modeled from scratch, except for the 27 lines in Rhino.
Here's one obvious advantage to modeling with GH, once the definition is set-up, it's virtually effortless to change inputs and alter the overall design. Here's an example, lets say we wanted to extend the roof 3 more units, curling away from the original direction.
Plan view before:
And after:
An MCAD app will also allow you to do this, as long as the location of additional elements follows the existing geometric method of definition. What happens if you want completely change the way you locate columns, roof slope, intersection points?
In MCAD, you'll need to re-model the underlying geometry, which will take the same effort as the first round. In GH, this process is not only much faster, it's open to algorithmic approaches, galapagos, etc. and it just takes some simple re-wiring to have all down-stream elements associate themselves to this new geoemtric definition.
For instance, here's the same definition applied to two curves, which are divided in GH, the resulting points are used as a starting point for lines directed at normal from curves.
This is not so easy to do in MCAD.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 7:55pm on February 24, 2011
use I don't agree with the practice of using site EUI as a metric to evaluate the thermodynamic performance, environmental impact, or monetary value of a building. I disagree with this practice for the same reason that there are no "totalThermalLoad" and "thermalLoadBalance" for simulations run with full HVAC. I can summarize these reasons in the following way:
When we run a simulation with ideal air loads, the heating/cooling values we get are THERMAL ENERGY that is directly added to or removed from the zone. In this way, we can draw a rough parallel between these two types of energy since they are are generally of a similar type and quality. As such, I am ok with adding them together to get total thermal load or subtracting them to get a sense of thermal load balance.
However, when we run a simulation will full HVAC, the heating/cooling values that we get are usually HEATING FUEL ENERGY and ELECTRICITY respectively. Fuel energy and electricity are fundamentally two different types and qualities of energy. To cite the second law of thermodynamics, the exergy (or the capacity to do work) of electricity is much greater than that of fuel. This is evident in the fact that, to produce a given unit of electricity, I often have to burn at least 3 units of fuel energy (though this can be much more for inefficient plants). With each step in a power plant - making steam, turning a turbine, turning a generator - there are significant energy losses. This difference in exergy is also evident in the fact that there are so many more things that I can do directly with a unit of electricity than I can do with the same unit of fuel energy. I can use electricity to directly refrigerate, produce light energy or power a motor just as easily as I can use to to cook, produce hot water, or heat a space. While I can cook, make hot water, or heat a space directly with fuel energy, refrigeration and lighting are much more difficult. For this reason, I do not feel comfortable adding electricity and fuel together either in the totalThermalLoad output or in a site EUI metric.
Still, the use of site EUI has become so ingrained in the industry that I have to acknowledge it and at least show users how it's calculated. In my view, it's an ad-hoc metric that was invented to deal with previously limited amount of information on energy sources.
Instead of using site EUI, I would recommend using the following metrics depending on what you are trying to evaluate:
Utility Cost / Square Meter - to measure the monetary value of a building to an owner or user
Kg CO2 / Square Meter - to measure the environmental and climatic impact of a building
Emergy / Square Meter - to measure the overall thermodynamic performance of a building
The first two are actually fairly easy to calculate these days just by researching your site's utility rates or grid energy mixture and multiplying the building electricity or fuel by their respective rates. I will add in some capabilities to Honeybee soon to make it even easier for you to get these values from your EPW file and databases of utility rates/grid mixture. Emergy is much harder to calculate as you have to trace all your energy sources all of the way back to the sun but there are a number of experts at work to make this calculation possible (probably in the next few years, we may have much easier ways to calculate it).
Hope this helps explain the current setup.
-Chris…
ake a network of lines (i.e. a graph) and make a Plankton Mesh, from which you can use Cytoskeleton to make a solid mesh (and then smooth it with Weaverbird).
Works with ngons (polygons with 3 or more sides). Other examples I found only worked with tris and quads.
Works on open or closed surfaces
While these examples start with a surface, you could start with a network of lines and make a patch surface
This is meant for 2D networks/surfaces. I haven't attempted filling a 3D volume. My guess is this wouldn't work as it would require a non-manifold mesh that Plankton wouldn't handle.
Note similar results could be achieved with the following:
TSplines
MeshDual (dual of a tri mesh, not as much freedom/control)
Working backwards, here is the GhPython script from Will Pearson that builds a Plankton Mesh from vertices and faces. The vertices are a list of 3D coordinates, the faces are a tree a lists, with each list containing the indices of vertices that form a closed loop. From Will, "Plankton only handles manifold meshes, i.e. meshes which have a front and a back. This orientation is determined by the "right-hand rule" i.e. if the vertices of a face are ordered counter-clockwise then the face normal will be out of the page/screen."
# V: list of Point3d # F: tree of int
import Grasshopper appdata = Grasshopper.Folders.DefaultAssemblyFolder
import clr clr.AddReferenceToFileAndPath(appdata + "Plankton.dll")
import Plankton
pmesh = Plankton.PlanktonMesh()
for pt in V: pmesh.Vertices.Add(pt.X, pt.Y, pt.Z)
for face in F.Branches: face = list(face)[:-1] pmesh.Faces.AddFace(face)
These vertices and faces are precisely the output from Starling. Starling takes in a list of Polylines which form the (properly oriented) face loops.
The polyline face loops can be generated...
Directly from Panels on a surface using LunchBox
Using any network of lines/curves on a surface (curves will need to be converted to polylines before Starling)
The latter was achieved using the Surface Split command, then converting the face edges (converted to curves) into polyline loops to represent faces.
…
search for residential type and surprisingly there are none. This can be, but i'm surprised.
The location in example is the Financial District of Manhattan. I assume there might not be too many purely residential buildings there. If you increase the radius to 300meters it will find one.The OSMobject "Residential building" will look for mostly purely residential buildings. For example those in Chinatown or Lower East Side.However most of the time a building might be a multi-purpose: shops on the ground floor, offices above, and above them residential apartments. Users can sometimes avoid tagging these kind of buildings, and may just tag them with "buildings"="yes", not the type of the building too (for example: "building"="multiuse"). So this may be the problem why you might not get too many residential buildings.I guess the only solution to this issue is to add these tags by yourself. Then Gismo will instantly make use of them.I mentioned previously that I will create a couple of video tutorials, but I seemed to never found enough time. I apologize for that. The process is actually quite simple.
Here is small step by step tutorial on how to do that. It may take you about 2 minutes to tag your building and use that tag in Gismo.
Also office buildings. I imagine this is not up to you, but can be kind of disappointing. I wanted for example to do some Ladybug analysis only on residential or office buildings ... pitty.
"Office building" has not been added to "OSMobjects" dropdown list. I have just added it.However, whenever some sort of object is not defined in "OSMobjects" dropdown list, one can use the _requiredKey and requiredValues_ inputs of the "OSM tag" component:
I just tried looking for office building for the same location we have in the create_legend_example.gh file and it found 3 of them. There would probably need to be more, but it may be that nobody tagged those with "building"="office"
The legend is nice, though i think is not completely synchronized with the LegendBakeParameters: You need to provide a point for the LegenPlane input and another for the titleOriginPt output of the CreateLegend.
Unlike Ladybug, Gismo threats the title and the legend separately. So the legend's color bar would have its own starting point (plane) while the title will have its own. I found myself puzzled sometimes in Ladybug, why this wasn't possible.Or did I misunderstand you?…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 12:33pm on May 8, 2017
a direct answer for you, in part because that statement suggests a complicated data tree indeed! And in part because I can't quite shake the question "Why?".
It's my nature to "think out of the box" and as you may have noticed, my answers in the other two threads related to this topic weren't quite what you asked for. The first question that comes to mind in this case is why look for the two closest trunks? Why not just the closest or why not "N" (all or all those within a given radius)?
The next question is why use a plane intersection at arbitrary height to get a point on each trunk for measuring distances between them?
So please bear with me as I explain how I've explored this problem so far, knowing I don't have an answer yet and, in fact, am not even sure that the question makes sense to me. ;)
First, I got tired of looking at these upside down "trees" so I flipped them right side up. I used 'Mirror' instead of 'Rotate' which might cause problems? But lets move on. I changed your preview colors so they wouldn't conflict with my 'Tree/List Viewer' defaults and to increase contrast a bit.
Then I skipped your methods for finding "Cluster 'B' and 'C'" and used 'Curve Proximity' between the trunks instead.
This is hard to convey with a static image but might make more sense interactively. There are two copies of 'Tree/List Viewer'; the second one ("slave" group) is driven by the set of sliders in the first one. As you move the 'path idx' slider, one of the trunks will be cyan in color, as set above. The others will be blue except for one that is yellow. As you move the 'list idx' slider, the yellow highlight will move among the blue trunks, showing the closest trunk at 'list idx' = 0 and the furthest at 'list idx' = 3 (five trunks total, one selected by 'path idx' and the other four by 'list idx'. The result is that for each trunk, we have all the other trunks sorted by distance.
That's all for now! There is a very simple way to connect the 'Twigs' instead of the 'Trunks' to 'Crv A' with interesting results, but it requires flattening the 'Twigs' so isn't as useful as we want.
The big question for me remains: what is the data/tree structure of the results you seek? From the statement I quoted above, it sounds like:
One branch per trunk.
For each trunk, one branch per twig? (or...?)
For each twig branch...? A list of distances to each of the other trunks? (or a list of the other trunks sorted by their distances from this twig?)
It sounds like a complicated mess, frankly. And again begs the question, why? What's the underlying goal beyond the objectives you have outlined so far?…
Added by Joseph Oster at 7:59pm on November 14, 2017
). It deals with the potential possibility to port GH into AEC fields (real-life AEC fields, nothing to do with academic thinking). The bad news are that the smart AEC sector is occupied solely by Bentley/GenComp – expect soon Revit/Dynamo as well (not to mention CATIA). The good news are that there’s millions of designers/engineers/industrial designers out there who could be interested for a 3rd alternative.
Intro: Well, in the old days (when men had mustache and muttonchops) AEC design performed in a nice top-to-bottom sequence (kinda like a vector) : the Big Man (aka The Brain) did some sketches (with crayons) and the rest (known as the “others”) struggled to make The Idea a reality. Today things are different, mind. Or they should be different. Or may be different. Or whatever. The big easy:For a zillion o reasons (AEC matures, PLM, cost, outsourcing, sustainable engineering…add several more) this vector like process of the past is like a Brown motion these days: Right down the moment that you (or your team) “sketch” The Big Idea … another team design simultaneously (i.e. in parallel) the components (parts) that compose the whole. This is the so called bottom-to-top design mentality. So the whole and the parts meet in some "middle point" instead the later being dictated by the former. In quite a few occasions parts dictate the whole (cost, cost and cost being the main reasons). The more a design is contemporary the more this bottom-to-top thing plays a critical role. Ignore it and have a very big time (sooner or later).The bad news:If you accept the above…well GH – at present phase - is not ready for contemporary AEC work. At.All.3 Main reasons for that:1.You can’t use parametric parts (i.e. nested blocks to speak Rhino language) into a given definition (in this case attached : truss nodes, connection flanges, mount plates, cable tensioners, planar glazing components, roof skin components…etc etc). This is obviously a Rhino domain.2.You can’t bake a given solution in such a way that the Rhino file is structured (i.e. assemblies of nested blocks). Or you can do it theoretically writing some VB/C code – but the core of the matter is that corresponding components are MIA. That means that you can’t export anything useful actually into established AEC oriented apps and/or established MCAD apps (for doing/calculating the parts for real-life production).3.The GH process can’t being interrupted. Imagine defining, say, a building “envelope” in GH and then …er…use Evolute tools in order to optimize things (say quad planarization and the likes). Then …continue in GH for more detailed work. Then design the parts as in 1 above. Then back to Evolute. Then back to GH.So…if anyone is interested I would be glad to start the mother of all debates and/or some kind of crusade (GH for President, that is).PS: This definition is a WIP thing – more refined stuff to follow (in particular a complex canopy tubes pre-stress system).
PS: Tree8 components are used sporadically.
PS: Use Saved Views
May the Dark Force be with us.Best, Peter …