egin working on a design, we first have to systematically examine the resources and restrictions which, on the one hand, make every design project possible and, on the other hand, also define and delimit it. Knowing what we have to work with enables us to explore its boundaries and at the same time to venture beyond those boundaries. This is our studio’s sphere of action; our projects emerge as a critical reflection of the discipline of architecture, in its essence, on fundamental concepts, their general form, and their underlying media and processes. The goal of our work is to master a variety of forms of the architectural repertoire of the 20th century, but especially to develop and expand this repertoire, as has been happening in the past 20 years. The goal of this workshop is to introduce a series of these techniques and expertises and to apply the knowledge transfer on a given site in Timisoara. GUESTS: STUDIO ZAHA HADID VIENNA: http://www1.uni-ak.ac.at/architektur/ https://www.facebook.com/StudioHadidVienna Ass. Dipl.-Ing.MArch. AA Dist. Robert NEUMAYR-BEELITZ - lecturer/critic http://www.unsquare.at/ AProf. Mag.arch. Mag.theol. Johannes TRAUPMANN - critic http://www.pxt.at/ Univ.-Ass. Dipl.-Ing. Jens Erik MEHLAN - critic http://moh-architecture.com/ Univ.Stud.Ass. Daniel BOLOJAN - tutor - Grasshopper http://nonstandardstudio.wordpress.com/ Univ.Stud.Ass. Bogdan ZAHA - tutor - Maya http://bogdanzaha.tumblr.com/ LOCAL: Prof.Dr.Arh.Urb.Conf. Florin MACHEDON - critic (BUC)
more information on https://encodedfields.wordpress.com/…
mp; fabrication and construction into a new era of architecture.
Register HERE
We follow three lines of thought to translate structural design in material fabrication. The first ultra lightweight, rethinking shape and material, the second dealing with same single material components, aggregated within a network, working with directionality of the elements and their connections to perform stability and for the third we will rethink definition of the brick.
Our Translations will be designed, analysed and presented in both digital and physical prototypes; from table top models, to 2m high structures.
The use of Grasshopper, Karamba and Digital Fabrication tools drive our evolutions of design. Structural design allows us to play with the type of forces in elements, orientation, force flow, geometry, restraints and connection. We use this structural behaviour to inform the search for new links between materiality, form and construction, progressing towards a unique relationship of structure, construction and fabrication.
Our Translations will be presented, through digital and physical prototyping showcasing the process of linking digital and physical inputs as a continuous feedback loop, rethinking structural design and material fabrication.
…
e HelloWorld function should need no argument but return the string “Hello World”.
Help on method-descriptor HelloWorld
| HelloWorld(...)
| HelloWorld(self: MyClassLibrary) -> str
Can anybody help?
Sourcecode MyClassLibrary.vb:
Simple Class Library Project in Visual Studio 2015
Function has no parameters and Returns String „Hello World“
Compiled *.dll works fine in other Visual Studio Projects as reference
Project Properties
Checkbox „COM Interop“ has no impact
…
r Material Science and Ligaproduction.
The exhibition started on May 12th and will be presented until August 19th 2012.
What is the meaning of »modular«? Essentially, everything in the world consists of a com- bination of elements, thus, of modules. As the basic building block of the elements, an atom forms the smallest unit in a structure’s totality. It is part of a whole, serving as a model for decoding and making comprehensible complex systems. In many disciplines, for instance in music, the sequence of smallest common units derives from an ordering prin- ciple, a rhythmic spacing, and from an aesthetic whose modular structure has both regular and irregular proportions.
In architecture, the module and modular construction have been governing principles for thousands of years. Primates use twigs as construction components for their dwellings, si- milar to the more familiar birds’ nests. During the course of biological and cultural evolution, refined methods of connecting components have been developed. Increasingly sophisticated construction techniques have evolved parallel to the tools, construction equipment and weapons available, as well as to the construction materials and support systems that were chanced upon or invented.
Ever since the earliest settlements thousands of years ago, the module has defined construction. Its dimensions, production and assembly have developed from preindustrial craft techniques to the construction of buildings, arising with the invention of the steam engine and leading into the Industrial Era. The first computer in the 1930s marked another technological leap. So what possibilities does the computer offer today’s architects for de- sign and construction?
While industrial manufacturing methods still require a critical amount of similar elements for mass production, the use of computers increasingly facilitates construction based on customized production of short-run elements with individual formats and complex geome- tries. At least that’s the theory. Computer-controlled machines and robots cut and stack structural components according to drawings – i.e. data sets – developed by designers and producers. Thanks to these technologies, architecture in the digital age is experiencing an evolution in construction and modules. The pioneers in this area are the projects developed at academic parametric design research units.
This exhibition features various examples from the development of digital technologies, presented in their historical context and categorized according to material: wood, stone, concrete, metal and synthetics. The »Housing Modules« excursion presents a selection of special urban planning systems as a series of space modules.
The historical modules each represent a paradigm shift in the evolution of an individual material. Since modules offer a tremendous wealth of opportunity, this section does not attempt to deliver the full picture: rather it intends to serve as an inspiration for further exploration.
In keeping with the Architectural Particles theme, the exhibition’s architecture consists of a modular system of tetrahedrons and octahedrons. The resulting crystalline shapes high- light the connection to nature while recalling modular construction systems from various architectural eras.…
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
ariations, but each seems to lack the sophistication to generate a ‘zip’ that retains its general shape over the whole curve.
Basically I’m trying to understand the process behind this: http://www.schindlersalmeron.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=27&Itemid=29
Here is an image of the latest definition.
1. I draw a curve in Rhino, and then define it in grasshopper. I also define the point as the beginning of the curve.
2. I offset the curve to a specified depth, based on structural member
3. I generate a line from the point at a tangent to the curve, then rotate it a
defined angle.
4. I find the intersection between the rotated line and the offset curve. Then generate a tangential line from this new point
5. Line is rotated at the same angle as before.
6. Process repeated.
The idea is to then generate a circle of defined diameter at each of the intersection points, then find the intersection of the circles with the curves, which are then joined up with straight lines to create the ‘zip’. This would mean a lot of copy-pasting and list management that I’m not really capable of with my limited grasshopper experience.
I had tried generating points at intervals along the curve and then eventually generating lines from one line to another with a shifted listed to form the tooth angle, but it wouldn’t retain its shape over the entirety of the curve.
Does anyone have any advice for how to tighten up this definition? I imagine that I will need to delve into vb.net scripting to address the recursive nature of the process.
I fear that I’m going about this in entirely the wrong way...
Of course the next step is to flatten out the curve for CNC manufacture.
Any help would be greatly appreciated! The potential for using grasshopper in design is amazing, and I would love to gain a deeper understanding of it!…
te some cut sheets, but not to optmize material, rather define some cut lines. Everything that I am cutting is made of planar wood elements, but there are very specific geometries (mostly straight lines) and I have to put tolerances and radiasas at the corners in order to cut on the cnc mill. Spending time to figure out how to automate is necessary, but I am stuck!
One thing the definition is doing is taking my brep modeled components in rhino and makking them into 2d close curves and laying them side by side. It works...not ideal as its not layed out in a sheet, but that is not the most important part.
Another particular problem is that you will see some notches in the curves, which other pieces will slip into, so different slots need different specific offsets (making them larger) as a toelrance to allow for material play. This I don't even know how to set up so maybe it will just have to wait.
THE MAIN QUESTION, and super important would be, LIFESAVER:
At all 'inward' corners...which I think will always mean concave corners (most are 90 degrees, but are within to sides, instead of a corner sticking out). I'm sure its obviousy, but the reason being the outward corners a circular dril bit can cut, but inward ones need an arc profile extended beyond where the corner of the other piece will fit into. The drill bit i am using is 6mm, so 6mm diamters arcs is what i'm working with.
I have managed to put such an arc at every vertices of each cut piece. The problem being some stick outward isntead of cutting into the piece. So each one needs to be orieneted correctly. Ideally they would also only draw into inward corners, but I can always delete them out. I think maybe I am missing a more logical mathematical way of defining?
For these geometries it is not very important which side the half circle arc in on in the inward corners, but I also have some geometries that I will have to control where the circles face according to the rest of the cut piece.
The cutouts in the middle of the pieces that are curves do not need such corners obviously.
The picture is an example drawn
I hope this isn't too specific and long. in general though automating fabrication, and controling pracitcal math and orientation problems like this is itnersting to me!
THANKS…
rk for Rhino, this is a first go at a very simple tool to get an idea of how fast different computers are at performing the sort of calculations used in Kangaroo, with the aim of informing those buying or upgrading their machines.
If you could take a couple of minutes to download and run this definition (after closing other running applications), then post here the result and your PC specs, hopefully we can start building a basic picture of what effect different hardware really has on the speed Kangaroo runs.
Most of the information can be found in the System page of Control Panel.
RAM speed can be checked in your BIOS, or with a tool like CPU-Z (note that the reported frequency from this should be doubled to get the actual RAM speed rating - eg if the frequency is 800MHz you should write DDR3-1600. It's confusing I know - see some discussion of this here), or by searching online for the specs of your PC model number.
This definition is purely testing the speed of the internal physics calculation, not display, so graphics-cards are irrelevant.
For now this is just to get a single general measure of overall Kangaroo speed, but it might also be interesting later to run a variety of tests to see how the speed varies with the size and complexity of simulation.
Of course a way of benchmarking general Grasshopper performance would be very nice to have as well, but would involve a lot more variables, and I'd be interested if anyone has ideas about how that could work.
Note - I posted a couple of versions of this earlier with various errors that were causing incorrect results. If you downloaded the earlier KangaMark01.gh or KangaMark02.gh file, please disregard that and any results from it and use the one posted here below:…
this common installation problem please find a tested remedy shared by one of the group members:
Comment by Iman Sheikhansari on August 26, 2019 at 8:33amDelete Comment
HiIf you are encountering a problem with rhino 6 versions don't worryFollow these steps.1. Download SYNTACTIC from https://sites.google.com/site/pirouznourian/syntactic-design2. Install it and go to the installation folder, Drag & drop SYNTACTIC(green one) over your grasshopper canvas.3. Close your rhino and reopen it. 4. Type GrasshopperDeveloperSettings5. Tick the Memory load *.GHA assemblies using COFF byte arrays option6. Run grasshopper and enjoy plugin
I hope this helps,
Best regards,
Pirouz
…
thing that MicroStation does (or doesn't). The eternal debate between us is that they focus to the so called BIM aspect of things (and obviously on interoperability matters - that said IFC2*4 is" implemented" in certain Bentley verticals like BA and others) whilst I'm after assembly/component puzzles (and on that matter ... MS ...hmm... to put it politely is not exactly CATIA and/or NX, he he).
On the other hand this paranoid obsession with Level/Layer driven CAD (I hate it) defines a red thick line between CAD and MCAD - because the most intelligent importer can't emulate the way that Siemens NX/CATIA classifies objects - and without control power means nothing.
On the other hand Microstation V9 (...soon) has interesting scripting capabilities (think Modo rather Generative Components) ... meaning that Grasshopper could work there in a rather nice way. I think that I must talk for that to Ray (he recently ditched the ancient legacy MS render engine in favor for the Luxology/Nexus engine). Ray still is negative to buy Act3D mind (hope that you know the mother of visual scripting - the Quest3D VR thing).
On the other hand - within the broad AEC aspect - things these days are different (especially in fast developing countries the likes of UAE, Saudi Arabia, certain ex USSR "democracies" etc etc). Studies are outsourced even at Preliminary Design stage to various sub-contractors (they undertake the Study completion per discipline as well). This means that N separate groups doing M aspects of the whole ... meaning entropy^(N*M) - that's chaos in plain English.
With this in mind I'm quite (a lot) skeptical about the practical meaning of the whole exchange thing in AEC - at least with regard the countries mentioned (not to mention that several portions of a modern AEC thing are made via MCAD apps - chaos^chaos.
I'll back with more focused issues on that matter.
But the big question is: Grasshopper of Generative Components? Well...let's talk serious SS bikes instead: think a Ducati 1198 and a BMW S1000RR (I have them both): which is "best"? The thing is that not always the best bunny is the fasted bunny and not always the fasted bunny is the best bunny.
Cheers,
Peter
…