edit 29/04/14 - Here is a new collection of more than 80 example files, organized by category:
KangarooExamples.zip
This zip is the most up to date collection of examples at the moment, and collects t
oCommonSDK, I modified a working C# component that does something similar (ReduceMesh, written by Andrew Heumann). Both scripts are attached.
Aside from changing the component name and eliminating the P parameter, I made two modifications to the script:1) changed line 87 from private void RunScript(Mesh M, double P, ref object A) to: private void RunScript(Mesh M, ref object A)2) changed line 93 from: Rhino.RhinoApp.RunScript("_-ReduceMesh _ReductionPercentage " + Convert.ToString(P) + " _Enter", false); to: Rhino.RhinoApp.RunScript("_-MatchMeshEdge " + " _Enter", false);When I run the ReduceMesh component, the mesh object I feed it gets baked, the ReduceMesh command is run, the temporary object is deleted, and the reduced mesh result is returned. (Thanks, Andrew).When I run the MatchMeshEdge component, the mesh object I feed it is baked, the MatchMeshEdge command is run, but the temporary object is not deleted and no result is returned. The runtime error reads: "Sequence contains no elements (line 0)". I have a feeling that the command line string I am handing to RunScript is incomplete. When I enter it manually on the Rhino command line I see that it wants a mesh and three parameters. Of course I can hit Enter to accept the default values, but when you invoke a command through RunScript do you have to supply all parameters regardless? Also, where would I find details on the argument types that the command wants? For example, the last parameter reads "RatchetMode=On" or "RatchetMode=Off". How do I know if the type is Bool or the literal string "On" or "Off"?I am a complete novice at this so any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated! …
ers and researchers, programmers and artists, professionals and academics who come together for 4 days of intense collaboration, development, and design.
The sg2012 Workshop will be organised around Clusters. Clusters are hubs of expertise. They comprise of people, knowledge, tools, materials and machines. The Clusters provide a focus for workshop participants working together within a common framework.
Clusters provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, processes and techniques and act as a catalyst for design resolution. The Workshop is made up of ten Clusters that respond in diverse ways to the sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities.
Applicants to the sg2012 Workshop will select their preferred cluster from the following:
Beyond Mechanics
Micro Synergetics
Composite Territories
Ceramics 2.0
Material Conflicts
Transgranular Perspiration
Reactive Acoustic Environments
Form Follows Flow
Bioresponsive Building Envelopes
Gridshell Digital Tectonics
More information about the Workshop and Clusters can be found here:
http://smartgeometry.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=116&Itemid=131
The application process will close on January 15th, 2012.
Full Fee $1500
Reduced Fee $750
Scholarship Fee $350
Fees include attendance to both the workshop and conference from March 19th-24th.
Reduced Fee and Scholarships are available only for Academics, Students and Young Practitioners, and are awarded during a competitive peer review process.
sg2012 takes place from 19-24 March 2012 at EMPAC (http://empac.rpi.edu/) and is hosted by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, upstate New York USA. The Workshop and Conference will be a gathering of the global community of innovators and pioneers in the fields of architecture, design and engineering.
The event will be in two parts: a four day Workshop 19-22 March, and a public conference beginning with Talkshop 23 March, followed by a Symposium 24 March. The event follows the format of the highly successful preceding events sg2010 Barcelona and sg2011 Copenhagen.
sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities
Simulation, Energy, Environment
Imagine the design space of architecture was no longer at the scale of rooms, walls and atria, but that of cells, grains and vapour droplets. Rather than the flow of people, services, or construction schedules, the focus becomes the flow of light, vapour, molecular vibrations and growth schedules: design from the inside out.
The sg2012 challenge, Material Intensities, is intended to dissolve our notion of the built environment as inert constructions enclosing physically sealed spaces. Spaces and boundaries are abundant with vibration, fluctuating intensities, shifting gradients and flows. The materials that define them are in a continual state of becoming: a dance of energy and information. Material potential is defined by multiple properties: acoustical, chemical, electrical, environmental, magnetic, manufacturing, mechanical, optical, radiological, sensorial, and thermal. The challenge for sg2012 Material Intensities is to consider material economy when creating environments, micro-climates and contexts congenial for social interaction, activities and organisation. This challenge calls for design innovation and dialogue between disciplines and responsibilities. sg2010 Working Prototypes strove to emancipate digital design from the hard drive by moving from the virtual to the actual in wrestling with the tangible world of physical fabrication. sg2011 Building the Invisible focused on informing digital design with real world data. sg2012 Material Intensities strives to energise our digital prototypes and infuse them with material behaviour. They have the potential to become rich simulations informed by the material dynamics, chemical composition, energy flows, force fields and environmental conditions that feed back into the design process.
More information can be found at http://www.smartgeometry.org
Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/smartgeometry…
Added by Shane Burger at 12:29pm on December 13, 2011
rection: there's no visible demand. Explanation: a lot of AEC oriented people (Smart Geo daydreamers) they think - potentially - about GH but they are rejecting it for more than obvious reasons: our job is 1% about the smart thing and 99% about the structured aspect of the smart (or stupid thing).
Back to that "hangar" : The primary role of this GH definition provided herein (and hopefully some future updates) is NOT to outline some academic solution (via some abstract collection of pipes/lines/points/surfaces) ...but to place in 3d space - properly structured - all the real-life (hmm, he he) bits that can compose the actual project. Of course if the bits could be parametrically driven assemblies ...well...you get the gist of the message.
All in all: I think that Engineers who are GH skeptics could see GH with a totally new perspective if, say, a collection of similar examples/test cases could be available for demo/evaluation/whatever > Ah! at last : this appears to be a real thing > what software did it? > say it again - Grass Components you said? > what sort of name is this? ... etc etc etc.
But since a similar development is quite expensive (and requires a team of several gurus), maybe this is rather a future potential task for the GH/Rhino people if they think that the AEC market segment could be beneficial for their products. Combine a similar capability with tools like yours and/or Evolute (planar quads are "a-la-mode" these days).
PS: forget trivial stuff > what about Stefanie? (plan B : better something than nothing)…
e case pictured already: don't bother how this truss is made and never mind that the def attached looks like an "add-on" (no components) - because it could be (so don't get stuck on that, it's irrelevant). In fact since the critical part (the 99% of the whole) if only doable with code ... it makes sense to do the rest with code as well (but that's my personal preference anyway, he he). Note: Balls are excluded from the demo.
You can toggle what "class" of struts is gonna being made with these booleans:
You can vary the sliders and if the code thinks that you make a valid input ... it obeys, he he.
But the big questions are:
1. Can you work with this in some interactive way? I mean vary any slider and ... wait ... for some change. Although the MERO components here are created ONCE and then placed around (minus obviously the tubes) ... they are placed as copies of the "donor" object (not instance definitions) creating a vast "pool" of "unnecessary" data.
2. What happens if you bake these little thingies? What file size you get? Is it OK?
But the bad news are that as I said ... this is ... NOT a task for a novice ... nor you can handle this get-a-truss-and-make-a-MERO-thing goal with half-measures: either you should do it properly ... or abandon ship.
NOTE: Load R file first (nothing is internalized).
Moral: even if this was made with components ... it wouldn't serve much.
best, Peter…
akes the linear regression of the Schroeder integral over 30 dB worth of decay. Whether it is T-15 or T-30, they all seek to estimate the RT, which is always always the time it takes for sound to decay 60 decibels.
The website has benchmarks, for your reference. You can find them under the 'Pachyderm' drop down menu, under 'Benchmarks'.
Your model may well require millions of rays to be accurate. It sounds like a very large space. I'm sorry if that is an unpleasant answer. Sometimes it does help to have a computer with more cores to help with this. I have gotten up to 90% processor usage on a 12 core machine before.
Arthur…
hat differ in shapes, sizes and height the facade would be a mess. Some spaces need some light while other can't have any. I would like to have full freedom of creation inside the building, to make it as functional as possible. Thats why i decided the parametric "skin" solution would be best. Since the location has industrial past (factories made of brick) i decided that brick would give interesting result.
I tried creating the definition on my own but since i lack skill in GH i got some problems (especially multiplication of bricks and the diffrence between each "level" (half a brick on y axis) caused problems for me.
I post my simple sketch explaining the idea of definition i would like to create (sorry about quality):
1 - Brep - I would like to use 25x12x6cm (classic brick) but as well experiment with diffrent shapes - like the one on the right with hole inside - that would give more light. Thats why i think the best solution would be using brep for this definition.
2- Multiplication - biggest problem for me - I don't know how tall the wall would be, what will be the final shape of Brep (brick) and that's why i would like to manipulate this with sliders as well. All the walls are flat (maybe it would be easier to use surface?). As i managed to multiply the bricks easy way i don't know how to gain control over height of the wall - for example that it is 30 bricks high, but has each second row moved on x axis by the distance of 1/2 brick. I tried using Series but with no success. Could you help me with that please?
3 - Rotation - i would like to use image sampler for that so i can "paint" where i want more sun and where i dont need it at all (black and white). The rotation has to be limited to 180 degrees as well. Obviously i didn't get here yet, but i never used image sampler so if you could give me some advice how to use component and how to create such images i would be really grateful.
4 - More of a concept thing - since the connection angles differ from 90 degrees i will have to figure out how to connect the parts of the wall at sides ;).
I would like to ask you for help with the defintion, since i am totally stuck at step 2. I post what i came up with so far. Thank you for your time and help!
PS. I post an image that is pretty similar to one of options i would like to check for my building.
…
e design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working. The big speed/usability advantage for the user that apps like Inventor provide is: All the defining, handling, assembling/gluing to the adjacent components is done as part of its 'main loop' with all the hooks that can cater to user interaction, ie traditional modeling. I guess one example of this is how Revit handles the placing of Adptive Components. AC's (and GC's GFT's) is pretty much a copy of Catia PowerCopies (which are probably a copy of something else). When placed, the AC's input points are transferred one by one to the cursor for the user to interactively place them. When copied, it tries to keep the same inputs, while changing its position/parameters. This saves a lot of time/nerves.
Catia, OTOH, is still thinking in terms of scripting and looks for matching property names, or uses a script to match strings, that nearly match. Sure, sometimes, this is unavoidable, but I think that there is a lot of room for incorporating a more traditional 'event-based' interface or 'wrapper' around the scripted components.So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results? An example of this is how Modo's Toolpipe works. The Toolpipe is a simple tool to record the active selection, snap/alignment/working plane, tool settings for re-use. I could see the user benefitting if the GH component was aware of the app's 'state' when placing/assembling components.
Also, a lot of simple things could be 'modeled' first and translated into scripted form if GH could read the active workplane, snap settings etc. Draw first, convert to hand-scripted script later?Columns: Looking at your description, the vertical elements were modeled in Rhino, and referenced in GH? 5hrs to get some points on the lines? And using Excel 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? The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.Would love to understand what you did by sketching.Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
With a manager, If one of the beams is connected to the column, changes in either component would trigger changes in the other to preserve the connection, regardless of the creation history. In GH, the dependencies are fixed, and the connection points would probably need to be defined independently, and placed 'upstream' of both elements. This makes editing laborious... but DAG processing is a lot quicker than constraints solving. Switching direction seems to be possible in the animation world. Maya etc have IK/FK switching, which seems to be able to reverse the solving direction on demand. Not sure how or whether the rig is scripted.…