greatly appreciate it!!
You can write the number of the question and write your answer next to it, example:
1) a
2) c
3) a) Washington University in St. Louis
4) 2 weeks (1week+1week shipping)
5) 130
6) b
7) b
The survey questions are as follows:
1)
Did you 3D print before?
5)
How much did it cost (in dollars)?
a.
Yes, for a school project
a.
Between 20 & 50
b.
Yes, for a personal project
b.
Between 50 & 80
c.
Between 80 & 120
2)
Print size
d.
Please specify if otherwise: _____ dollars
a.
Between 2 & 6 cubic inches
b.
Between 6 & 12 cubic inches
6)
Do you think the price was expensive?
c.
Between 12 & 20 cubic inches
a.
Not at all
d.
Please specify if otherwise: ____cubic inches
b.
A little bit expensive
c.
Very expensive
3)
Where did you print your object?
a.
School
7)
Were you satisfied with the printed object?
b.
Outside school: _________________
a.
Yes, it was a great print without problems
b.
Not bad, some issues
4)
How long did it take to print?
c.
I was not satisfied, very bad quality
a.
___ days
b.
___ weeks
Thank you very much to all!!
PS: If you did many 3D prints, you can post multiple answers.
Wassef…
whole 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 Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
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.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
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.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011
he picture (4).
Previously, I had a problem with generating intersections between the two directions of the beams, but a colleague helped me by extending beams, so there was no problem with lines of intersection. But this solution has generated curl (5) at the highest vertex geometry, which I ignored in order to repair it before printing, perhaps this mean my problem with my beam spread properly. Only when the beams is 19, does not jump no problem, but I still can not distribute them properly.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
I tried to show as simply as possible by removing or signing my code in GHX file.
Thank you in advance for your help
…
bro su Grasshopper "Architettura Parametrica", co-director della AA Rome Visiting School per la Architectural Association di Londra (http://www.arturotedeschi.com/).
Il corso introdurrà il software Grasshopper, plug-in per la modellazione parametrica in Rhino. I partecipanti saranno guidati attraverso gli aspetti più importanti del programma e le principali tecniche per la programmazione visuale all’interno di Rhinoceros. Il corso è rivolto a studenti con esperienza minima nella modellazione 3D e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche ed esercitazioni. Sarà rilasciato un attestato di partecipazione.
principali argomenti: - Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio - Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica - Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow - Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati - Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici - Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi - Trasformazioni geometriche - Data tree: gestione di dati complessi - Meshes e Subdivision Surfaces (Weaverbird)
GENOVA 11 > 14 APRILE 2013 programma completo ed iscrizioni…
roduced the same error.
I tried to run them again with the file already open and I got this (I imagine predictable) error:
Sorry! But the number of available CPUs on your machine is 4.
Honeybee set the number of CPUs to 4.
Grid-based Radiance simulation
The component is checking ad, as, ar and aa values. This is just to make sure that the results are accurate enough.
Good to go!
Current working directory is set to: C:\ladybug\Parametric_Shading_Wall\psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux\gridBasedSimulation\
Failed to remove the old directory.
WindowsError(32, 'The process cannot access the file because it is being used by another process')
Failed to read the results!
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
Runtime error (PythonException): Failed to read the results!
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
rtrace: fatal - (psw_z0.25_t.025_y.2_r90_m3_lux_RAD.oct): truncated octree
Traceback:
line 336, in script
@Mostapha, if it is indeed a different issue, what do you think it could be?
Thanks again,
-Nicholas…
e surfaces (in both directions) according to an input length I set?
2. [refer to image: split surface, butt joint case]
Then can I control where the split occurs? Because if all splits happen at the same positions, the waffle would not be structural.
3. [refer to image: split surface, with gaps case]
Another situation is to control where the split occurs, but gaps are created at the split. How can I get this done? This has reference to the AA pavilion.
Files attached.
Thanks for help,
Fanny
…
ky.exe did not accept -p parameter and made empty sky.cal file.
----
Edit: solved run problem, Bee did not download OpenStudioMasterTemplate.idf
Get it here: https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Honeybee/issues/119
Now get empty HDR:
C:\ladybug\prox\imageBasedSimulation>rpict -i -t 10 -vtv -vp 245.129 -226.458 20 0.405 -vd -0.549 0.656 -0.518 -vu -0.332 0.397 0.855 -vh 42.862 -vv 26.991 -v l 0 -vs 0 -vl 0 -x 800 -y 600 -af prox_RAD_Perspective.amb -ps 8 -pt 0.15 -pj 0.6 -dj 0 -ds 0.5 -dt 0.5 -dc 0.25 -dr 0 -dp 64 -st 0.85 -ab 2 -ad 1024 -as 175 -ar 150 -aa 0.200 -lr 4 -lw 0.050 -av 0 0 0 prox_RAD.oct 1>prox_RAD_Perspectiv e.unf rpict: 0 rays, 0.00% after 0.0000 hours rpict: skybright`c__ladybug_skylib_cumulativeSkies_SINGAPORE_SGP_SINGAPORE_SGP_1 : undefined variable rpict: 1020 rays, 4.91% after 0.0000 hours
----
Hi friends,
trying to get a cumulative sky image metric to run and encountered an issue with the image-based metrics component. It throws:
Runtime error (KeyNotFoundException): honeybee_materialLib Traceback: line 768, in main, "<string>" line 1442, in script
I guess this is some sort of setup issue on my end, or I messed up the definition? Any help appreciated.
Thanks,
Max
…
you working on a PV system which will power a domestic hot water boiler?
To answer your questions:1) Each grasshopper component (ghpython being one of those too) is using grasshopper's data matching algorithm. This algorithm takes care of complex issues which may arise from combining lists with single items, data trees with different number of items per branch and so on.I think there is a way of introducing a call to other processor's threads per each inputted surface, but this will be a very difficult job, as it will require writing a custom data matching algorithm. I do not think I am up to that task.Instead I tried to introduce the multithread only to the final part of the PVsurface component and one of its time consuming parts: calculation of sun angles, solar radiation and ac/dc power output.I attached the test file below, but sadly it didn't go well: the multithreaded version mostly runs at the same time as the regular version.I do not think I am qualified enough to answer why is that so, but I think that it may have something to do with the type of the function that the multithreading is applied to: the code is suppose to run few separate functions a couple of thousand times, and work with a couple of lists. From my experience, the multithreading works the best when a single list or two are supplied to a single function. I may be wrong on this.I am very sorry to say that I can not implement this feature.2) I am not familiar if open source PV modules database has been released.But one can always download the data for specific modules from producers websites. It can then easily be transferred to a .csv file or other text file.Ladybug Photovoltaics are based on NREL's PVWatts model.In comparison with other commercial software applications, PVWatts offers a more generalized system model, with some of the values and characteristics being assumed or embedded.The Fuentes empirical thermal model we are currently using follows the same logic: it generalizes the Module characteristics. The following characteristics are only editable: module efficiency, temperature coefficient and module mount type.It may be possible to replace Fuentes with some other, less generalized 5 parameter thermal model. But as an architect, I would definitively need help on this.
Sorry if my reply did not fulfill your expectations, and thank you for the kind words!…
s levels of detail by subdividing a 6 sided cube mesh and projecting its vertices according to a referenced height map. This is one of the standard conventions for building full sizes planets. At the lowest level (0) the mesh planet is made of 6 pieces(each 32x32 resolution). The next level down (1) is made of 24 pieces... 6 divided by 4 = 24. Level (2) is 96 quads etc etc. The script will generate each quad at its sub-division level and compare edge vertices to neighboring quads. It will then make sure any shared vertices are in fact at the same projected vector. This ensures a planet quad with edge vertices that match.
The problems comes in texturing each quad.
If I build the quad as a nurb surface from points I can place the texture easily because each surface UV maps squarely to my texture map (which is also square).
If I build the quad as a mesh I cannot just apply the square texture to the mesh UVs. This is because when you unwrap the UVs from a mesh they will not unwrap like a nurb surface's UVs. Therefore to get the correct mapping I would have to manipulate each UV back to an evenly aligned array (which is 1024 points in a 32x32 resolution UV). Maya and blender have 'relax uv' and 'align UV' functions but they don't do the trick and manual corrections are out of the question. So why not skip the mesh method and use the nurb method?
I did this and there is a trade off. The nurb will accept the material texture I want with no other work on my end but when I export the object as an .obj rhino creates its own mesh to describe the nurb(with various unsatisfactory setting options). This works great up to a point because at some level the interpreted mesh will have vertices that do no match at the edges, ie .. creating visible seams in the mesh. The picture below is the nearly seamless planet at LOD(1) made of 24 quads, each with 32x32 vertice resolution and a 512x512 jpg texture running in Unity3d 5. It works but at close level there are seams. This will be resolved simply by having the next LOD(x) instantiate before getting close enough to see the seam but at core nerd level I want the seamless mesh.
So, I can make the seamless mesh but I can not realistically texture map it. I can also make the nurb surface from points and texture it at the expense of the edge vertices matching. I am at the split in the road but I want to have my cake and eat it too. Thoughts, comments, trolls...?
Thanks for reading =)
Footnote: For you pros I am not using seamless noise across the map I am using grasshopper to sew up my otherwise non perfect edges.
Other programs in the pipeline:
-WorldMachine 2
-Wilbur
-Photoshop
-Unity3d…