A: Who created it? / Copyright?
B: Anyone have a larger resolution copy of this image (or a vector so I can do a large resize).
Long and short - I'm an artist and I'd like to make a quilt out of that image. I need a decent resolution copy of it so I can do a huge resize and get a 76" x 80" crop out of it. I've tried resizing it in Photoshop, but by the time it's large enough, the quality has dropped below what is usable for my needs.
Thanks in advance! I totally understand I'm relying on the kindness of strangers here. (Also if this is inappropriate to post - please delete. Thank you)
Michael…
have some spare time please fill in my 3D Printing Open Survey - If you could make almost anything, what would it be ? Updated results are publicly available after completing questionnaire (Please press "Wyślij" - Send button and "Wyniki ankiety" - Results button at the end). This survey will be used to evaluate demand for 3d printing services globally. It consist of 30 questions about: - open-source 3d printers - future of additive manufacturing - 3d printing services - ecology in 3d printing - copyright issues and 3d printing Three example questions: 2. Which of the following 3d printing applications is the most interesting? * - Things personalization - Printing food - Attempts to print structures resembles in functioning living tissues or blood vessels - Creating impossible or difficult to create by using conventional technology things - Printing rooms or buildings on earth/moon - Printing chemical compounds (for example drugs) - Using in renewable energy sources - Printing parts and/or mechanical vehicles 3 . Have you ever heard about cheap DIY 3D Printers (for example RepRap, PrintrBot, MakiBox A6) ? * DIY - Do It Yourself - Yes - No 4 . When 3D Printers will become one of the typical household appliances ? * - After 5 years - After 10 years - After 15 years - After 20 years or later - Never - I don't know Feel free to ask questions!…
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013
milar once its default data managment techniques are exceeded thus forcing a new address index to be inserted. Its all just so unnecessarily particular and finickity.
If addresses are added when forced to, why not just have that as the default behaviour in the first place? Its not so much 'one size fits all' as postulated previously, but more one size fits 80% of cases and in the remaining 20% of cases you're going to be a slave to your definition as constant manual management will be required just to control the thing.
My final point:
circle with points should have a list address of {0}
multiple circles with points should have list address of {0;0}
multiple circles in multiple locations with points should have list address of {0;0;0} etc
I really dont see how that is any less consistent for highly complex data strucutres. To any rational individual this is predicable and follows a logic. What advantage is there in fixing the address at {0;0} yet still allow for new address sequences to be added firther down stream? Logic is the key thing to keep in mind here, not peculiar nuances only the initiated can ever be aware of.…
cle
the 'Shape' is copied to all points
shapes are rotated randomly, plus or minus 'Angle' maximum
'Shape In Brep (ShapeIn)' is used to cull shapes that aren't within the circle
'Fast Loop' begins using 'MCX' (Multiple Curves Intersection)
first shape is added to 'D1' output and shapes intersecting it are culled
results minus first shape are passed to 'D0' of 'FastLoopEnd'
loop repeats until 'D0' list is empty
'D1' results are scaled down slightly (0.75) to leave more space around them
'Explode' results and return only the curved part, ignoring the base line that closes the shape
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 11:01pm on March 17, 2017
avid--this software is a pleasure to use, and David, you have done an amazing job. I also want to acknowledge it takes a lot of work to edit the software, and I understand that it can take a while before any changes are made.
Okay so here are some ideas:
Subcurve - just like subsurface, but based on 1-dimensional intervals
Map Values to Interval - a single component that could take a list of values, an interval, and would scale the list of values to match the input interval.
A Dispatch component that could dispatch according to a list of output indices. Instead of just True/False, you could output things based on a pattern using 0/1/2/3/4, etc. This component would be the inverse of Weave.
A text object parameter and data type, with some basic ways to edit it.
More string manipulation operations, allowing for easy editing with string subintervals, and character counts, and basic text formatting (line return, etc.).
I really really really wish the List Item component had a default index value of "0". That is what I input into it 80% of the time.
That's all for now. If any of these ideas are already adequately addressed, please let me know. Thanks.
…
ellation tool of GeomGym in Grasshopper.
The design looks for a new brick topology which is in the shape of two generative elements of Weaire-Phelan structure; dodecahedron and tetrakaidecahedron. An innovative approach is taken by applying varying types of solutions and details to the new brick elements.
There are other good examples and winners which are worth looking into. Our sheets can be downloaded from here.
All comments appreciated.
We would like to thank Jon Mirtschin and anyone who contributed to this tool.
Xue Ai and Serdar Aydin…
ce attractors
3- Relation between mathematics and Form
4- Network surface and Paneling
5- Fabrication methods (slice3d, nesting, ...)
6- Structure and Architecture (Millipede)
7-Energy and form
8- Islamic patterns
9- Physics with kangaroo
…
button to generate such complicated and unruled geometry. Seriously, if you don't understand a geometry, how can you solve the structural needs and the bloody fabrication. Giant fast prototyping machines doesn't exist!
In a era where ressources and energy is getting scarce, I don't understand this trend of fancy no sence look like organic buildings. They just look organic in our human perception. Nature builds things with define physical and biochemicals rules, and this is why when they grow, they look like that. You should study Frei Otto publication from the 80's.. the IL publications. They were using physical models to generate physical structures that would be build in the physical world. Computers and softwares are dangerous as we distach from reality.
We put all this effort to generate these fancy forms, but no brain is put in structural optimization, energy efficiency (for instance in relation with the sun, or other natural elements)
IT technology goes faster than the time we have to reflect about it. (not talking about the technics).
As Frei Otto told me personally in our last discussion (talking about philosophy and architecture): " We have to define the OPEN QUESTIONS. Once these questions will be defined, you'll get answers".
I think we are getting to a question here: " How to use this technology to solve problems in Architecture?" Before that " What are the real problems in architecture?"
Maybe David should make a component for that? For instance, a button that could solve the loging and infrastructure problems for these millions of people living in the slums of Mumbai...
What about that Krish Raj?…