2d grid from
grasshopper but in 3d, fully controllable of course. I want to do something
like the image in this web
site:http://news.cnet.com/Photos-Weaving-high-tech-fabrics-of-the-future—page-12/2009-1008_3-5667576-12.html
I figured that connecting points and lines kind of works (point and line input AB command) but the line length changes when I move a
point. What I want to be able to do is to move a point and drag others but keep
the line segments constant, just as a real net.
…
Added by Jesus Garza at 8:28am on February 23, 2010
ehow acquire different settings/are calculated differently. Appears at random “rows” of points, sometimes it all works fine, so I need to do a series for the error to show. See images below.
In the Ladybug fly run the VT of the window changes.
It’s taken me a day and a half to track this error down. Phew.
I get the same error on two different comps.
What is causing this? Does anyone get the same error? Images below created with RADquality set to 2, and 7 cores. Fiddling with Radsettings dont help, I think, except error goes away with very low ab.
…
d the fact that one pipe goes out and one goes in, that the surface normal direction is opposite for the two surfaces? Based on an earlier thread, you should know why by now. The two curves have opposite directions (again!); see the white arrows using Rhino 'Analyze | Direction'?
As before, you can fix that by flipping one curve to match the other. HOWEVER, you connected your curves directly to the 'Divide' components instead of using 'Crv' geometry params - bad form. And as before, you "fixed it" by reversing the list of starting points ('S' input to 'BiArc'). Better like this - 'Crv' params are internalized, no need for Rhino file:
Well, well! That didn't fix the opposite surface normals after all! Trust me, though, using geometry params and being conscious about matching curve directions is "best practice". But I haven't lofted 'BiArc' curves for awhile, it's late and I want to move on. OH! I just noticed that you reversed the 'Z' direction for one half of the 'BiArc' - that explains it:
Moving on... You've basically got it, though I would do it differently - same result, like this:
I haven't really explained surface normal vectors - can you figure it out from here? One more little wrinkle (Normal_2017Mar17b.gh):
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 12:03am on March 18, 2017
ported to Rhino and "set" in Grasshopper, i trim both surfaces from their rectangular bases so that when sDivide is used it creates and distributes the same number of points on each surface.But heres the problems: a) if i use the "trimmed" surfaces with SrfGrid it errors warning: "A point in the grid is null. fitting operation aborted".I'd learned this was caused by "nulls" replacing position Data Items when the rectangular grid(surface base) was trimmed away. So i used Clean Tree which worked removing all nulls, then Shift Paths\Flip Matrix to create line-endpoint pairs for Polyline\Evaluate Curve. I Flattened the last Flip Matrix placing all data items in one source for SrfGrid, like in the working Untrim\CopyTrim definition.This time,.b) SrfGrid errored with: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.So, i substituted a 356 value, numeric Slider in the Addition B param., and tested its range until a valid UCount was found. Then SrfGrid fitted a surface thru the points, BUT,d) those SrfGrid surfaces are extremely deformed even thought the points preceding it from Evaluate Curve are accurate,SEE: def: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",AND,.a2) if i use Untrim with CopyTrim then SrfGrid works, but since the Jokers limbs WILL be in different surface positions then the blends between the Arm (for example) will rise from its relative FLAT position on the untrimmed Source surface to the Arm on the Target surface, rather than morphing from the Corresponding Arm position on the Source surface,. ..see def.: "4-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh"So please let me know,..1) how to produce accurate surfaces from SrfGrid in def.: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",. ..(NOTE: BOTH these def's contain 2 indentical, "internalized" surfaces, but if def. 3b can be made to work it will also work with Dis-similar surfaces)2) which component to use or how else to determine the correct UCount value for a specified amount of points(ie:155), re: SrfGrid error: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.3) how else to force SrfGrid to work with Trimmed surfaces?, AND,..4) how to force intersurface, point-blend correspondence lines: Polylines(PLine) to be connected between correctly! correponding positions (Limbs) on the surfaces?,
Really! appreciate all help, definitions and kind generosity common to this knowledgable membership,
Cheers!,
Jeff…
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.…
are invisible in the picture.
So what you see it's a common band that has lost all those characteristics of the original in order to protect the process.
We also did an "invisible setting" prototype which has built in Flexibility.
If you are in the jewelry industry you would know what I mean and it is close to a miracle.
It's a shame I can not share details and this is why I am planning my next major work on something 10 times more complex then this, at least.
It's will be for my own business and for the jewelry industry as well.
I hate to tease people and then not to be able to produce anything more than an image.
But I thought it would be better than nothing, at least for jeweler designers, so they can see that there are more and more users and that complexity it is not something to shy away from, and it's worth the time spent because the returns on production are far larger than for special orders and this is why GH is useful.
We can design a piece of jewelry usually in less then 1 hour, hence GH is not really worth the time.
But for production with so many variables (Finger sizes controlling most of the outcome together with stone sizes etc.) then GH it's a MUST!
I really appreciate everyone's comments and suspicions and I understand why.
99% of the people out there do not really understand the complexity of jewelry at the industrial level. It' s not just form but the post-production that's the killer.
This industry it's still an hybrid of technology and art with, and due to the lack of the old school pros, unfortunately, we face very lousy and unpredictable execution in the post production (after the casting process). This leaves you with a design process and intention that requires a lot of control over every possible variant of the object.
One wrong design aspect it's multiplied thousands of times at the benches (for every single piece) = bad profits!
It sound more serious that it is but very few companies are willing to do so (delivering good product vs low quality and this also happens because the consumer is not longer aware of the difference. So, who does keep quality, it's only because of integrity, third party QA or just pride).
This is way GH is invaluable. This is why that Def looks like out of proportion for that (Visual) simple band.
It is because there are dozens and dozens of variable effecting everything else. In fact it is not even complete as it is in order to cover everything but the most critical ones.
Sorry for the long replays. I am an instructor and a professional jeweler by trade since I was very young and I love to teach, so I overflow with explanations... and Components :)).
Next time it will be "in the open" as they say...…
uments:
1. You are targeting CATIA don't you? (not exactly tomorrow but ... soon) and/or SolidWorks (hello C# haven't we met before?).
2. You MUST deal with nested block instances instead of what you are trying to do right now (I'm talking about the real MERO things not abstract Lines and points). This is not doable with GH components I'm afraid (but it's rather easy with code).
3. You MUST deal with RDBMS in order to keep track with what's going on in your company per project per case per designer (who sells that bolt? what's his cat name? is he a reliable supplier? what I'm doing in life? ... that sort of "queries"). At this point: CATIA is 1% CAD things and 99% PLM stuff (Product Life cycle Management). We do want that since it's 21st century running don't we?.
I hear you: but these are 3 arguments ... indeed but ... hey who's counting? he he.
Method:
A. This def attached has a very simple C# that gets mesh Pts and makes a nice U/V style collection of points (DataTree in plain English).
B. Then we go to that umbrella sticks thingy: we can calculate anything (already the thing does "some") plus your collections of divided points (with the right way, he he) VS a given node: you said (Skype) that you want to calculate angles with these (from 2 to 6) in mind: obvious since you are doing real-life MERO things.
C. Then we could calculate the appropriate Planes for PlaneToPlane transformations: get a nested instance definition (the red things that you've showed to me yesterday) placed at 0,0,0 (Plane.WorldXY) and put in in every Plane collection related with every node (clash defection is an obvious must).
Case resolved, closed: what about that Vodka?
More in Skype
…
merely automates finding clear intersections between pairs of objects and then splits the objects along those intersection *curves*, deletes the trims, then joins the remains, and cycles on. But within the confusing Rhino Settings tolerance value, wherever surfaces actually just sort of come closely together, there *is* *no* clear intersection curve. So it bugs out and stops working EVERY time you try more than a dozen or two spheres.
Some software can do this by switching to volumetric pixels (voxels). $9K-$30K Geomagic Freeform is an example of this. It also fails sometimes, often due to memory issues, as you can imagine since it needs to fill all inner space of each sphere definition with 3D pixels.
Materialize Magics for $16K can often handle such Booleans well. It will take a seeming lifetime to figure out such often pirate software kludges though.
One thing you can try though is to simply drape a mesh or NURBS plane onto the top of your spheres.
There's a well known *reason* your Booleans are failing. Nobody here has yet even hinted at it:
The main reason is that Rhino/Grasshopper developers don't care about the human element. The math exists to make this work very fast, every time. It just has to join things *right*, incorporating human knowledge of kissing surfaces, instead of acting stupidly, like some pocket calculator. But that would involve hacks that make 99% of complex Booleans work instead of 10%, and we can't have that since it will be SLOWER for the other 1% that just happen to have no nearly kissing or really kissing surfaces.
You could also use the new Cocoon plugin to do a surface *around* your structures, with a given radius of extension beyond the spheres, then offset that surface back the same radius. That is 100% robust, but won't offer quite as sharp of intersections, more rounded, like most everybody wants anyway.
You can *test* Boolean failures, by running a Grasshopper intersection command, to see the intersection curves, and zoom in to see how badly many of them are, all knotted, or twisted, or even with gaps, often with gaps.
It's a math problem nobody at McNeel wants to solve, sorry.
Just write a check for $25K and spend six months taking notes, like I did, and you can merge your simple spheres finally.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:33pm on October 20, 2015
lts.
In the visualization, points is an interesting option. It's a matter of aesthetics I guess, I go with surfaces :) Also what you can try is selecting Filters -> Slice (you can also find it in the icons above the pipeline viewer), in the Slice options below the pipeline press Z normal and on the Z coordinate press some height relevant to the buildings (e.g. 1.75m a typical human scale). That would show you the flow around the buildings on that height. Experiment with selecting other normals and values. Keep playing with the filters there's some cool things in there. Also you can check out the mailing list and extensive paraview documentation.
Concerning the errors I apologize because I just downloaded your case.
It appears that the decomposeParDict is not included in the system folder. I am not sure if this is due to BF not going through the whole workflow yet or an ommission on our side. Please feel free to add it in Github. I will also note it down and pass it to Mostaph to check. In the meantime please find attached a VERY detailed decomposeParDict file. I took the liberty to set it at 4 processors (the numberOfSubDomains value) and also selected (that is uncommented) the scotch decomposition method. It's the easiest method to use since it is automatic and doesn't require any more inputs on how the domain is decomposed on the x,y,z directions (which would require you to change values in the attached file).
Now, the different folders created are simply snapshots of the current solution at the specific timestep. To control how often the solver is saving change the writeInterval number in the controlDict file. You can also change almost all these values on the fly, while OF is running.
Finally, concerning the other errors of parafoam it seems somehow parafoam is reading the intial condition names instead of actual results from the solution files and it doesn't like it.
Does this happen only when you open the case (i.e. at 0 time) or does it also happen when you move to an other timestep?
Also, are you using paraFoam, paraview or the paraFoam -builtin method?
The extension of the paraFoam file seems to be .foam which means you are probably using the built in viewer. That might be the issue but I'm not sure.
Can you try running paraview, navigate to your case folder, open the .foam file and see if there is still an error?
Also, if it isn't much trouble can you zip one of the time folders and attach it here? I'd like to take a look at what's inside to check against what the error report says.
Once again thanks for testing!
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
radiance parameters to get rid of blotching. To add another level of complexity to my problem, I am running simulations with a translucent material with the following properties: void trans testTrans
0
0
7 0.478 0.478 0.478 0.000 0.010 0.178 0.635
I have had no issues with the renderings when I use clear glazing, as seen on this image:
However the blotching-issue becomes very noticeable when I introduce translucent glazing into the scene:
For the two above cases I used the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 2
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.5
_aa_ is set to 0.2
_ad_ is set to 2048
_st_ is set to 0.5
yScale is set to 2
_ps_ is set to 4
_ar_ is set to 64
_as_ is set to 2048
_ds_ is set to 0.25
_pt_ is set to 0.1
_dr_ is set to 1
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 256
_dt_ is set to 0.25
_lr_ is set to 6
_dj_ is set to 0.5
_lw_ is set to 0.01
I ran another test with increased Radiance parameters and got the following output:
with the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 6
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.75
_aa_ is set to 0.1
_ad_ is set to 4096
_st_ is set to 0.15
yScale is set to 6
_ps_ is set to 2
_ar_ is set to 128
_as_ is set to 4096
_ds_ is set to 0.05
_pt_ is set to 0.05
_dr_ is set to 3
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 512
_dt_ is set to 0.15
_lr_ is set to 8
_dj_ is set to 0.7
_lw_ is set to 0.005
Although the second blotching case is much better than the first, it is still very bad for hours when the sun is lower in the sky. The above images are rendered for a clear sky at 18:00 in Germany in a West-facing room.
Sorry for the long post! Can someone help? Kind regards, Örn
…