VIT also. That would be a paradigm shift to us.
I have been reading all af the trouble shooting forum/comment/instruction and I am pretty sure im doing right thing. only thing I cannot figure out is the placement of the files below.
I have been using mantis shrimp and am facing difficulty for reading .geo file. GH export seems to be fine. Dynamo side is not recognizing the .geo file somehow. my guess is the .py files are not correctly read. where do I suppose to store .py files above?
Please kindly advise me.
Many thanks.
…
s, each made from two Nurbs curves, each with different surface properties.
Curves A1 and A2 have 2 control points:
startpoint and endpoint
Curves B1 and B2 on the other hand were drawn with 6 control points each.
What's more, those point's aren't equally distanced from one another.
The lofts inherit the position of control points of the profile curves.
The distribution of control points in the loft direction is uniform.
So no suprise here:
You can think of Nurbs curves as rubber bands and of Nurbs surfaces as rubber sheets. The areas with less control points would correspond to streched rubber.
Now lets imagine you take an A4 piece of rubber, lay in on a table and draw equally distanced lines on it. When you strech it ununiformally - the distances won't stay equal anymore.
Returning to your first post:
The Divide Surface component operates on u,v values which you can imagine as dimensions of the rubber sheet in relaxed state.
So the result you got was indeed an equaly divided surface, only in the so called "parameter space" of the surface, which doesn't always correspond to the xyz space.
There are methods to divide curves and surfaces in equal distances in the way you want it. For starters check out the Evaluate Lenght component.
I think that's enough teory for today. Have fun!
JJ…
ng (It's a bit similar to the Knapsack problem):
I have a Variable --> XandI Have fix numbers (can we call "pieces") 9,12,15,18
I'd like to reach the X, with the summing of these numbers and using the minimum pieces ,it can't be lower than X, but it can be higher, maximum with 3.After this it has to found the most optimal combination which mostly use the same pieces
E.G.
X=98
The wrong solution is like = 1pcs of 18 = 9pcs of 9
Sum of pieces are 10
OR
= 3pcs of 18 = 1pcs of 15 = 1pcs of 12 = 2pcs of 9
Sum of pieces are 7
The right solution in this case = 5pcs of 18 = 1pcs of 9
(5*18)+(1*9)=99 it's good beacuse it's over with maximum 3 and uses the minimum pieces
Then it sends to a list like18 : 5pcs15 : 0pcs12 : 0pcs9 : 1pcsCan somebody help me ? Or is it possible to make this ?
Thank you…
Added by Petrik Kollár at 1:09am on November 10, 2017
fear that it would be too hard, but I was pleasantly surprised. Not that bad, even for a C# novice. I am attaching the *.cs files for three components:
SerialCreate component creates the serial port instance. This component controls port parameters and opens/closes the port. (It won't close the port, however.) SerialWrite and Read try to interact with the port created by SerialCreate. I can verify that the port opens because it's unavailable to other terminal applications, but if I try to close the port, it won't...it stays open until I restart Rhino. SerialWrite works, because I can see the rx light on my device light up when I enter text in grasshopper. SerialRead does not work. I blue screen with a DPC WATCHDOG VIOLATION.
All in all, not too bad for a day's work. I'll forget the user objects and go for custom components. The question that still remains is that I don't think I'm correctly or efficiently sharing the serial port instance with the other classes. Again, this is just a hack, but I'm happy I'm closer to solving the problem (or so it seems). If anyone has any ideas about how to better go about this, I'd appreciate any suggestions.
Thanks again,
~BB~…
glass panel).
2. This actually means that the parts on duty they don't differ that much. Meaning that we can use an "average" size (and "local" topology) acting as the Jack for all trades.
3. Meaning that we can effectively solve the abstract topology with an abstract app the likes of GH and then place in properly defined coordinate systems all the real-life bits and nuts ... closely "emulating" a pro solution (that could "adjust" the parts as well).
4. This means that one particular C# needs more lines of code since as it is it defines cable axis on a per nod to node basis ... but in fact these are defined as the min segment between curves (circles to be exact).
5. Additionally the end part of each strut differs depending on how many pairs of stabilizing cables are used (either 2 or 1). Meaning some lines of code more for defining the proper coordinate systems for the instance definitions.
6. This is the reason that I've postponed mailing to you the 4 horsemen (because PRIOR finishing the whole you MUST define what parts to use: the classic bottom-top design approach).
But in order to receive the Salvation (aka: Apocalypse) you MUST answer correctly to a simple puzzle:
Provided that money is no object, pick your car:
1. Ferrari 245 (Less is more)
2. Lancia Stratos (Lethal).
3. Cobra 427 (Men only)
4. Ford GT40 (Mama mia)
5. Ariel Atom (Mental)
6. Aston Zagato GTB4 (Sweet Jesus)
7. Fulvia HF Fanalone (THE racer)
8. Lambo Miura (Enough said)
9. Lotus Elise (Just add lightness)
10. Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione (In red)…