what they really mean by that, as in what buttons to push, so I assume it's a Windows Path entry?
2.) Modify PATH
Add the install location on the path, this is usually: C:\Program File\IronPython 2.7
But on 64-bit Windows systems it is: C:\Program File (x86)\IronPython 2.7
As a check, open a Windows command prompt and go to a directory (which is not the above) and type:
> ipy -V PythonContext 2.7.0.40 on .NET 4.0.30319.225
Tutorial on setting a Windows environmental variable (path):
http://www.computerhope.com/issues/ch000549.htm
But this fails to point out that path contains many entries already separated by semicolons so if I merely add a new variable called "path" it's likely that I will destroy existing program function. There's no info on how to just tack on another entry, and the Windows 7 edit box doesn't even show the whole collection, but one item (!), so I copied the existing path into a text editor to see the whole collection successfully and added the C:\Program Files (x86)\IronPython 2.7 entry after an added semicolon, correcting for an Enthought page typo of no 's' on the end of "Program Files". I also checked the others and many pointed to old missing directories so I deleted those entries.
...and the test fails and "ipy" is not recognized as a command, even though the path now shows up using "path" in the Windows CMD window, that is if I copy all by right clicking and pasting the stuff into a text editor to really view it all. I can run it from the source directory just fine.
The rabbit hole was indeed deep. Using the Task Manager (control-alt-delete) to kill Explorer and then Run in the menu to restart "Explorer," along with restarting the Windows CMD window however, worked. I can now invoke Iron Python ("ipy") via command line from any directory. For the "path" I edited path in the System Variables and not the User Variables. No, you don't have to type that whole crazy line above just to test the path variable, just "ipy" (and control-Z to quite IronPython) in the CMD window invoked by typing "cmd" into the Start menu search box.
From the CMD line this step did work fine:
3.) ironpkg
Bootstrap ironpkg, which is a package install manager for binary (egg based) Python packages. Download ironpkg-1.0.0.py and type:
> ipy ironpkg-1.0.0.py --install
Now the ironpkg command should be available:
> ironpkg -h(some useful help text is displayed here)
But of course Step 4 fails, giving pages of what seem to be error messages;
C:\Users\Nik>ironpkg scipy
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Program Files (x86)\IronPython 2.7\lib\site-packages\enstaller\utils.
py", line 92, in write_data_from_url
File "C:\Program Files (x86)\IronPython 2.7\Lib\urllib2.py", line 126, in urlo
pen
File "C:\Program Files (x86)\IronPython 2.7\Lib\urllib2.py", line 397, in open
File "C:\Program Files (x86)\IronPython 2.7\Lib\urllib2.py", line 509, in http
_response
...
Why can't I just download Numpy as a normal file and thus also have it easy for other users to install it when they use my scripts? This is just crazy and lazy. The Enthought developer has turned this into a computer game, with a missing registration link and then the last step spits out errors with utterly no information on how to fix it manually.
This Step 4 error is covered here:
http://discourse.mcneel.com/t/trying-to-import-numpy-in-rhino-python-but-im-getting-this-error-cannot-import-multiarray-from-numpy-core/12912/16…
Added by Nik Willmore at 2:36pm on October 11, 2015
make quad mesh usable with Kangaroo and with limited inputs parameters in order to simulate funicular structures like "Vaulted Willow" or "Pleated Inflation" from Marc Fornes and the Verymany.
Here is a first attempt script.
As inputs there are :
Lines_in, just lines, no duplicates, on XY plane could have Z values, but the algorithm works on a , on XY plane could have Z values, but the algorithm works on a flat representation.
Tolerance is used to glue lines when points are closer than tolerance
Width is the half width of the “roads” going through the network
Angle is the shape of the ends of the roads, 0° means flat end, 180° a totally rounded end
Deviation is the shift generating spikes or enabling to generate pleated geometry
N_u is the number of subdivision along the “roads”, image above with 3 subdivisions on the roads
N_u is the number of subdivision across the “roads”
Zbool if false everything is flat, if true the mesh is in 3d, best with angle = 180° or -180°
For the outputs there is the topology of the network (like Sandbox)
As outputs geometry are put on datatree, each branch represent a path on the road, above 3 paths, which are brep output.
Adding a diagonal there are now 4 paths so 4 branches
The mesh M goes with F which are fixed points, anchor in Kangaroo.
U and V are lines in datatree, there will be used as spring in Kangaroo, U above
This script could be used to draw sort of roads, like in here https://codequotidien.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/hemfunction/
But the primary purpose is to do that.
…
curve or locus] of a segment AB, in English. The set of all the points from which a segment, AB, is seen under a fixed given angle.
When you construct l'arc capable —by using compass— you obviously need to find the centre of this arc. This can be easily done in GH in many ways by using some trigonometry (e.g. see previous —great— solutions). Whole circles instead of arcs provide supplementary isoptics —β-isoptic and (180º-β)-isoptic—. Coherent normals let you work in any plane.
Or you could just construct β-isoptics of AB by using tangent at A (or B). I mean [Arc SED] component.
If you want the true β-isoptic —the set of all the points— you should use {+β, -β} degrees (2 sides; 2 solutions; 2 arcs), but slider in [-180, +180] degrees provides full range of signed solutions. Orthoptic is provided by ±90º. Notice that ±180º isoptic is just AB segment itself, and 0º isoptic should be the segment outside AB —(-∞, A] U [B, +∞)—. [Radians] component is avoidable.
More compact versions can be achieved by using [F3] component. You can choose among different expressions the one you like the most as long as performs counter clockwise rotation of vector AB, by 180-β degrees, around A; or equivalent. [Panel] is totally avoidable.
Solutions in XY plane —projection; z = 0—, no matter A or B, are easy too. Just be sure about the curve you want to find the intersection with —Curve; your wall— being contained in XY plane.
A few self-explanatory examples showing features.
1 & 5 1st ver. (Supplementary isoptics) (ArcCapableTrigNormals_def_Bel.png)
2 & 6 2nd ver. (SED) (ArcCapableSED_def_Bel.png)
3 & 7 3rd ver. (SED + F3) (ArcCapableSEDF3_def_Bel.png)
4 & 8 4th ver. (SED + F3, Projection) (ArcCapableSEDProjInt_def_Bel.png)
If you want to be compact, 7 could be your best choice. If you prefer orientation robustness, 5. Etcetera.
I hope these versions will help you to compact/visualize; let me know any feedback.
Calculate where 2 points [A & B] meet at a specific angle is just find the geometrical locus called arco capaz in Spanish, arc capable in French (l'isoptique d'un segment de droite) or isoptic [curve or locus]
of a segment AB, in English. The set of all the points from which a segment,
AB, is seen under a fixed given angle.…
looked at autodesk simulation cfd 2015 and was optimistic because it had an export plugin from revit, which i use anyway for material takeoffs and etc, but found that it did not take solar radiation into account. This was a downer because I have heard that solar radiation could effect indoor airflow - convection - as much as 50 percent at a time.
Then I searched again and found that Hyperworks, a software by altair technology can be coupled with a radiation software. So I went through the trouble of obtaining an educational license of Hyperworks. However, though some email exchange I have found that the coupling is a one-way. The radiation analysis software was used, I think, for understanding the solar loading for a SOM project called church of light.
The support guy said : "Unfortunately our coupling with Hyperworks is really a one way coupling. We can accept H coefficients from their software in RadTherm, but they will not read in our wall temps. That said, it still can be a useful coupling in the sense that you can run the analysis in Hyperworks, send H coefficients to RadTherm, and run the analysis to better understand radiation and conduction. Most importantly, that analysis can be done for longer transient analysis, but will require much less compute time and resources."
Not only did I not understand what he means by the H coefficients, my wanting to get a CFD understanding coupled with solar radiation was again, unsatisfied. In the mean while I had to finish a presentation so I haven't had the time to try to get some result on the natural ventilation. I would probably need to look into how their solutions work before I can understand if their software would "do the job"
Thank you for letting me know about your work on this. I downloaded the Honeybee_Set EP Natural Ventilation component and made sure that it is allowed, but it does not show up in grasshopper.
You pointed out that "The component (and the corresponding equation) is mostly meant for cases where you have zones with windows that are NOT connected by an air wall (or a larger airflow network)." I wondered if you are suggesting it would be a code violation for zones to be connected by an air wall for fire safety reasons. It would be a violation I guess, like not putting an fiber insulation or some kind of smoke stop between Spandrel panels and the edge of a floor plate would be a code violation for a typical office building.
There is a project by kevin daly architects where you can see a section drawing with what seems like a cfd analysis (could be an illustration)
it was my initial visualization/simulation goals were for a facade design I am working on
1) an average air velocity across a zone at noon, for example, if a passive design strategy like this was used. for this I am guessing cfd is not entirely necessary. probably means that it could be used earlier in a design process, too. This would be more about user comfort.
2) at a later phase, like in detailing facade components, if airflow is indeed as expected for a zone that is connected to an air wall / chimney like feature (and to see if there is a proper mixing of air)
3) and a projection of energy savings, of course.
After seeing a video of simulation cfd I was optimistic, but like I said sim cfd does not take account of solar loading. I think I would probably go ahead start with one zone with sim cfd first, try three zones stacked on top of each other, then try hyperworks and try to factor in solar radiation.
For analyzing multiple zones on different levels, being able to add a chimney would be especially useful, I think. Having said that, I don't have a lot of experience of using honeybee except for the daylight component so it would take some time for me to understand the components.
I hope some of the information here is useful for you. after all, both sim cfd and hyperworks are commercial softwares and somewhat different than the e plus project you are working on, I guess but still trying to address a similar problem.
so.. in cased you missed it I was asking I downloaded the Honeybee_Set EP Natural Ventilation component and made sure that it is allowed and placed in the user object foler, but it does not show up in grasshopper. what could be the reason?
…
main attention is set on easy to handle interface , which should be used at a early stage of conceptual design to respond to external and internal influences in a intelligent and sustainable way.
Participants will use the software Grasshopper as a parametric modeling plug-in for Rhino. The usage of this graphical algorithm editor tightly integrated with Rhino’s 3-D modeling tools open up the possibility to construct highly parametrical complex models. To generate this complexity we will use live linkages to several programs listed below:
• Autodesk Ecotect Analysis and Radiance via GECO
• Processing, Excel or Open Office via gHowl
• FEA software GSA via SSI
In this 3 intense days, the participants should learn the workflow of the plug-ins with the help of examples and get an overview of the different software’s, there possibilities for evaluating the performance of a design or the usage of additional tools to be not chained to a single system .
(e.g. parametrical accentuation, parametrical formation, parametrical reaction)
TIME AND LOCATION
27th – 29th September 2010Leopold-Franzens university innsbruck/austria
Technik Campus | ICT - building
Technikerstraße 21a
A - 6020 Innsbruck | Austria
47°15’50.71”N 11°20’43.45”E
detailed program as pdf-version
FOR WHOM
All levels are welcome (students & professionals)
The only requirement is knowledge of Rhino and Basic Grasshopper.
You will need a level which corresponds to the Grasshopper Primer course outline.
FEES
21 hours
professionals: 395€
students (bachelor/master): 250€.
REGISTRATION
please send a email to to.from.uto@gmail.com attached with following information :
Last Name
First Name
Date of Birth
Nationality
Email Address
Current Address
Profession or proof of student status
After submitting you will receive an email with a PayPal link to complete registration.…
diseño, construcción y entendimiento de nuestro entorno.
BIM está poniendo a disposición de los diseñadores y gestores auténticas bases de datos que pueden generarse, conectarse y editarse de forma paramétrica, proporcionando una sólida capa de realidad a los ejercicios de diseño generativo y computación que son objeto de estudio en Algomad, el seminario que busca popularizar la programación y la parametrización en el diseño y en la experiencia de nuestro entorno construido.
Tras un paréntesis en 2015, Algomad vuelve con el objetivo de demostrar cómo una visión computacional del BIM es una oportunidad para mejorar la forma de trabajar de ingenieros, arquitectos, constructoras y operadores de edificios e infraestructuras, tendiendo un puente entre las técnicas de diseño digital más avanzadas y la realidad de la construcción.
Algomad 2016 tendrá lugar en el centro de Madrid, en IE School of Architecture and Design, IE University, los días 3, 4 y 5 de Noviembre de 2016 y comprenderá 4 talleres así como ponencias a cargo de expertos de primer nivel.
Estructura de Algomad 2016
Algomad 2016 se estructura en torno a tres áreas temáticas principales:
BIM, como la metodología total específica para el sector de la construcción.
Computación, englobando las aplicaciones de programación y parametrización al diseño de edificios e infraestructuras.
Realidad, como marco de trabajo, buscando siempre resolver problemas reales a través de los dos puntos anteriores.
Público objetivo
Arquitectos, arquitectos técnicos, ingenieros y en general académicos, estudiantes de últimos cursos y profesionales del mundo inmobiliario y de la construcción que compartan un interés por la digitalización de nuestro sector. Se espera un nivel mínimo en el uso de herramientas BIM y de parametrización. Algomad proporcionará formación adicional y gratuita en las herramientas básicas a emplear en los talleres para asegurar un correcto desempeño.…
ively and creatively solve today’s product development challenges.
Our Rhino3D Foundations for Industrial Design class provides an in-depth look at 2D and 3D tools and methods with Rhino3D, a NURBs surface modeling software. In this class, we will systematically work through Rhino3D’s core features, using them to model the various components of a consumer product. Over the course of 3 days, we’ll cover some foundational topics, including Rhino interface and navigation, Rhino3D object types and properties, creating and editing 2D and 3D geometry, procedural modeling, automation, transforming geometry, Rhino modeling best practices, freeform vs. precision modeling, and exporting geometry.
You’ll take away the following:
Navigate the Rhino modeling environment
Create, edit, and modify curves, surfaces, and solids
Precision model using coordinate input and object snaps
Use transformation and universal deformation tools
Apply best practices for layer management and model annotation
Download the course one-pager. Need more information? Connect with us.
This class is ideal for:
Industrial designers who are new to Rhino3D and want to learn its concepts and technical features in an instructor-led environment.
For groups of 10 or more, contact Mode Lab at hello@modelab.is
Interested in additional training options?
https://www.modelab.is/upcoming-computational-design-events…
e think. Also, its easier to catch an error because the malicious component simply turns red/orange (in most cases). However, if you are adept at scripting, you are probably very used to recursive looping & conditional evaluation which you miss majorly in GH (it is possible in very limited ways through using series components or comparer components). So an adept scriptor may soon end up switching back to Rhinoscript unless they find the shift from VBscript to VB.net really fast & smooth (which is rare).
GH ofcourse has the advantage of keeping it all 'alive' and changing things with sliders/graphs/image painting, compared to Rhinoscript which is a run-once operation -- so that's where one makes a choice between recursive looping (in RS) & live interactivity (in GH). I'd say RS mostly wins the battle because interactivity is fancy, but recursion can be a necessity.
Now to VB.net. The one barrier I have hit most often with GH is speed. If you were working on a fairly large data set, or doing a number of surface/polysurface/brep operations, you hit the performance ceiling real fast, which is when the interactivity becomes almost useless -- because its nowhere close to real time anymore even if you had 12gb ram. Thus steps in VB.net (A bit of clever scripting can make a really significant difference).
Working a series of geometric operations in a code component is much faster than doing it through native GH components due to the fact that each native component comes with tonnes off error trapping code, preview generation (I think even if you turn it off, its still being computed, only not displayed), etc. while with VB, you can circumvent a lot of that.
If GH were to handle geometry even remotely comparable to what GC/Catia* can do, it would have a long way to go -- I am not sure if that is even the objective. For instance, I am currently working on a tower where all geometry is only meshes and polylines - no degree 3 curves, no surfaces/polysurfaces. This is because if the entire tower is to stay 'alive', Meshes are the lightest option with the amount of geometry being generated. And most of it is through code... there's only the sliders and a couple of other components that are GH native -- and its still in GH due to the interactivity. (I think there's a vast potential with Meshes that GH/Rhino are really not tapping into. There are all the building blocks, but no significant implementation. Giulio's weaverbird plugin is just a small example).
*GC/Catia cost significantly more than Rhino itself, and GH is a free plugin to Rhino. Morever, these softwares were written to be parametric modelling softwares from day1, unlike GH which is an add-on over the RhinoSDK, which was never developed from such a perspective. So a very very unfair comparison there, but GH is becoming so significant that its got a forum of its own -- gaining an almost 'independent software' status. I just hope the McNeel marketing people are not listening :)…
we're actually using PET sheets for our flexures. We try to design so that the flexures don't go through more than +/- 30 degrees of deflection. If the angular deflection is kept small, the lifetime can definitely be on the order of 1000000 cycles.
As for the design process (item 2), ideally the designer would be able to use a simple 3D CAD tool to design a model of a robot, and the geometry would be represented by dimensioning the individual parts in the model. Maybe there should be some parametric primitive kinematic building blocks like four bar linkages, box frames, etc. that a user could build up a robot from. But, the key functionality the tool needs to provide is for the designer to be able to visualize how the robot will move when it's fabricated. This could mean observing (or plotting) the motion of a leg, a wing, or a series of body segments. Ideally, then, the tool would generate an unfolding of the design. How this would work is still very vague - maybe the user would assist in the unfolding, maybe there would be an optimization routine that computes optimal unfoldings based on criteria like minimal waste, or fewest pieces (I would *not* constrain the problem to construction from a single monolithic piece as in origami). The biggest problem we have right now, is that our design process is totally divorced from fabrication. Even if we went through the trouble of extruding individual thin plates in Solidworks and creating an assembly for visualizing the kinematics of a mechanism, that particular representation doesn't transfer easily to the fabrication process because it's essentially monolithic.
Item 3: The 2D drawing is simple a drawing done manually in Solidworks. There are different layers for flexure cuts, outline cuts, and potentially any cuts to be made in the plastic flexure layer. Depending on the robot, there may be many separate pieces for different parts and linkages in a single robot. For example, the drawing for a robot containing a fourbar linkage may have the linkage laid out as a physically separate piece consisting of five rigid links connected by four flexure hinges. During assembly, the designer would then fold up that linkage and insert it into the robot wherever it's supposed to go. If you're curious you can see some sample 2D drawings for older designs here: http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ronf/Prototype/ under the "Example Structures" heading.
I noticed Kangaroo seems to be a popular choice for physical simulations. I don't really even need to include forces like bending resistance - I'm happy to allow the design tool to approximate flexures as pin joint-type hinges. Once the design is unfolded, the details of how to cut the flexures could be worked out in a post-processing step. I wouldn't expect the tool to be able to realistically simulate the bending of the hinges.
I'm going to have to dig a lot deeper into understanding Grasshopper and Kangaroo. I only just got started with Grasshopper today by following the folding plate tutorial on wa11ace.com.au today. …
round each gap is called a compact circle packing, and this isn't always possible to achieve exactly on every surface, but luckily for a sphere it is.
You can break the problem into 2 parts:
-The combinatorics, or connectivity, ie how many circles there are, and which is tangent to which. This is often represented as a mesh, where each vertex is the centre of a circle, and the edges link the centres of the circles which are tangent to each other.
-The sizes and centre positions. If you treat the combinatorics as fixed, you can then concentrate on optimizing the radii and locations of the circles to get them as close to tangent as possible.
I have done some work on solving these 2 parts simultaneously (see video here), and shared some scripts for this here.
Alternatively we can deal with them separately. For the combinatorics you could use something regular, based on subdivision (for a sphere you might want to start with an icosahedron). Alternatively you could use the remeshing tool I recently shared here. This can cover any surface with a mesh of almost equal edge lengths.
For the second part there is a force in Kangaroo which can optimize any triangulated mesh so that there is a packing of spheres centred on its vertices (and if the mesh is smooth, this sphere packing also leads to a circle packing). The file cp_mesh1 in the circle packing directory of the new collection of Kangaroo example files I recently posted shows this.
As for limiting to a small number of specified radii, this is still tricky, and impossible without compromising some of the other conditions. If you allow some variable gaps between the circles, you can replace each one with the closest from your set of radii. If you do not choose your radii in advance, but generate a packing with continuously varying radii then cluster them, it can give a better fit.
Alternatively you can give up the requirement that the packing to be compact and have good tangency, but some gaps with more than 3 sides.
Circle packing is a beautiful and surprisingly deep topic. I'd also recommend taking a look at the work of Ken Stephenson, Bobenko Hoffmann and Springborn, and Mathias Höbinger's thesis, which goes into more detail about triangular meshes with tangent incircles.
…