re-design-blog/20...
It has singed shopfronts, melted cars and caused great gusts of wind to sweep pedestrians off their feet. Now the Walkie Talkie tower, the bulbous comedy villain of London’s skyline, has been bestowed with the Carbuncle Cup by Building Design (BD) magazine for the worst building of the year.
And it's not the only building with the same problem by that architect.
He should know: he has history with death-ray buildings, having designed a hotel in Las Vegas with a similar concave facade that scorched sunbathers’ hair and melted poolside loungers.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/39403349/ns/travel-news/t/death-ray-vegas...…
Added by Joseph Oster at 4:53pm on November 16, 2015
starting as soon as possible.
We're offering challenging projects, insights and contact to leading industry companies, project responsibilities according to abilities and initiative, great work environment and laid-back atmosphere, room to play and evolve,...
Our ideal candidate:
- is passionate about construction, engineering and (computational) design
- is proficient in Rhino / Grasshopper / (GH-)Python
- knows his ways around the Adobe Suite and MS Office
- has a current work permit for Germany
- is a German speaker (other native speakers also welcome, with excellent English skills)
- has an architectural background (Student / BA / MA /...), ideally with work experience
- is interested / has experience in digital manufacturing and prototyping
- will be able to join us shortly
We're looking forward to your applications / inquiries / CVs to: mpelzer@fat-lab.de
View our past projects here: www.fat-lab.com
(Current projects, unfortunately, are non-disclosed)
…
op van maximaal 1000 iteraties
3) Offset de polyline en maak een nieuwe Brep van alle curven
4) Bepaal de Area-centroid van de Brep
5) Bepaal het verschil tussen de huidige centroid en de gezochte centroid
6) Als dit verschil minder is dan 1e-12 breken we af
7) Vermenigvuldig het verschil met vier en pas de polyline aan
8) herhaal (3 - 7)
Is dit min of meer wat je wilde? Het lijkt dat er ~50 iteraties nodig zijn voor een antwoord dat accuraat is binnen de 1e-12 eenheden.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 5:26am on August 24, 2010
t how to do it on the 6 surfaces of my new model.
The goal is to lasercut it out and put the 6 surfaces together to make a lamp. :)
I hope someone can help.
Best regards
Sune…
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
…
ius, like the image below. I have a string with all of the 8 radii in a group of data. I was using the Divide Surface command, but there are two problems. First, the resulting points have a tree structure shown in the screenshot below, with {8; 2; 3}. How do I assign radius so that the six holes on the same panel has the same radius? The second problem is, the divide surface command generates points along the edges, too, where I don’t need any holes. How can I get rid of them?
…
I want to trace a parallel line to a2. This line cuts r3 at B.
At this point B I need to trace a new parallel line to a3 that cuts r2 at C...
and so on and so forth,
red lines are auxiliary lines parallels to green ones.
I think it could be get with a loop but I have no idea to do it.
Could anyone give me a clue?
Thanks a lot!!
…
not working, then this can be a limitation of Honeybee, not the Terrain shading mask component.You can authenticate the mask shape by using the Udeuschle panorama generator (I used the following Trento coordinates: lat:46.066667, long:11.116667):
Sketchup has a similar plugin for Trynsys3D terrain shading masks.
I gave a reply on your upper questions in here, in component's release topic, so that it would be useful for others users too.
Actually I tried also to create the mask of the mountain using the topography I imported from Sketchup and the Ladybug Shading Mask II component. In this way the shading effect is well noticeable, but the process of creating the mask from such a complex geometry is very slow.
I can make a component which will automatically generate the topography of the local terrain, for a given latitude/longitude, but you will have to wait some time. I am currently doing some repairing around my house and cottage, and I do not have any spare time.Have in mind that depending on the configuration of you PC, you may not be able to have the terrain radius of up to 100 km. While Terrain Shading Mask component actually creates this terrain, it does not add it to the grasshopper document. In your case the terrain will be added to the grasshopper document which may crash Rhino depending on your PC configuration (for example it crashes Rhino on my PC).…