can be found in "C:\Documents and Settings\<user name>\Application Data\McNeel\Rhinoceros\5.0\Plug-ins\IronPython\settings\lib\rhinoscript" folder on WinXP. So could have used yours too.
RhinoCommon is a SDK and basically the power behind grasshopper and rhinoscriptsyntax functions. In fact each time you call a rhinoscriptsyntax, a RhinoCommon code gets executed.
And, yes:
import Rhino - imports RhinoCommon
import utility - enables importing utility.coercebrep() (or coerce3dpoint() coercecurve() ... so on)
Item access means an input is consisted of a single item.List access means an input is a list.Tree access means an input is consisted of a tree with data on different branches.rs.BooleanDifference requires both of it's arguments to be lists, so it would be logical to set the inputs b1 and b2 as lists. But there is one problem, that Mitch pointed out to me: it seems that python components (like grasshopper components) are "intelligent", and can distinguish whether you are inputting item, list, or tree. Setting your input as list, might disable this ability and leave you with only possible type of input (list).So honestly I do not know why in this case, setting the inputs to Lists worked - due to mentioned "intelligence" of python component, even an Item type would work.This might be a question for an experienced user, I am just a beginner.…
well, very similar input data must result in wildly different hashes. For example, imagine we have an algorithm which computes hashes of text, and the hashes it computes are all numbers between 0 and 999. We then apply this algorithm to a piece of text:
"When Spring comes back with rustling shade" = 385
So far so good. Now imagine we change the text slightly, for example by removing a single "l":
"When Spring comes back with rusting shade" = 973
Minor change -> very different hash. There are of course way more unique texts than there are numbers between 0 and 999. This must therefore mean that a lot of text will result in the same hash. For example "When Spring brings back blue days and fair." may also result in a hash of 385. Because of the pigeonhole principle, there is nothing to be done about this.
Now for the tricky bit. Hashes are often used to validate executable code. Say your friend James at MI6 sends you a small program that will allow you to eavesdrop on Angela Merkel, and -over the phone- he tells you the hashcode for that application. You can then hash the application yourself, verify that it indeed results in the same hashcode and then you know you can trust the executable.
But now Jack from the FBI intercepts the email and adds a few sneaky lines of code to the original application allowing him to determine from your internet search history with up to 95% accuracy whether you like extra cheese on your pizza. The application has now been tampered with, it can no longer be trusted and you should be able to figure this out as it will no longer result in the same hash code.
But wait! Some hashing algorithms are more secure than others. MD5 is now officially considered to be 'hacked' and it is no longer recommended for doing naughty spying. Specifically, Jack will be able to inject his own code in such a way that it does not result in a different hash. Instead, the SHA family of hashers are to be used, as it is not yet known how to trick these hashers.
This is where the problem comes in, because apparently the US government has forcefully disabled the use of MD5 for all purposes. This is a shame because I use it to quickly compare bitmap icons for identicalness so I only have to store an icon in memory once. There is no security hole due to this, because I'm not hashing secure data. MD5 is somewhat faster than SHA, and since I have to hash several hundred icons on Grasshopper start, I opted for the faster one.
(Very) long story short; you're hosed. Grasshopper uses MD5; USgov does not like; Grasshopper does not run on USgov computers.
I'll do some testing to see if I can switch to SHA and then we can see whether or not that solves the problem. This however will take a while as I'm going on a business trip next week and have yet to prepare my presentations.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 31, 2014
assume we want to format two numbers, one integer and a floating point value. The integer represents an index and it should appear inside square brackets, then we want the floating point number rounded to a maximum of 4 decimal places (but always using at least one decimal place, even if it's zero), and then, in parentheses a scientific notation representation using 8 decimal digits of the number.
So, assuming the index is 16 and the value is 47.280006208, what we are after is:
[16] 47.28 (4.72800062E+001)
To make this work, we need a formatting pattern that looks like:
[{0}] {1:0.0###} ({1:E8})
The square brackets, spaces and parenthesis are just part of the output, they have no meaning whilst formatting. Everything inside the curly brackets though will be replaced with a specific formatting of one of the values.
When using the Format component as shown above, the formatting pattern is just text data. The component knows that it is supposed to use the Format() function using the pattern text and whatever additional data is provided.
When you invoke the Format() method in an expression, you do need to make sure that the pattern is actually text:
So here the pattern needs to be encased in double quotes, otherwise it will be treated as code, rather than text.
You cannot use the formatting method in the internal expression of a number parameter, because this method returns text, whereas the number parameter is only capable of storing numbers. Any expression that you put into a number parameter had better return numbers as a result.…
wing exception will be thrown:
Message: Cannot import name minimum_edge_cut
Traceback:line 60, in <module>, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\site-packages\networkx\algorithms\__init__.py"line 21, in <module>, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\site-packages\networkx\generators\classic.py"line 5, in <module>, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\site-packages\networkx\generators\__init__.py"line 84, in <module>, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\site-packages\networkx\__init__.py"
I would inform you that I have also copied the Networkx library into "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\site-packages\" and have specified this directory in "Python Options->Files->Module Search Paths" so that Rhino/Grasshopper knows where to access this library.
Could you please help me how can I sort this out?
Any comment is highly appreciated.
Shayan…
t BBox will then be mapped relative to the UVW space of that box to the new target boxes.
Where your definition is slipping up is the data matching aspect of GH. You have two lists (that count). One list contains 100 items of target boxes and the other contains 2 items of geometry. GH defaults to the Longest List data matching
List A --> List B
Target Box A0 --> Cuboid
Target Box A1 --> Cylinder
Target Box A2 --> (Oops List B has run out of items. Now GH will repeat the last item = Cylinder)
Target Box A3 --> Cylinder
.....
Target Box J9 --> Cylinder
Solution
There are two approaches to rectify this the most logical would be to group the geometries into one object (What you had in mind with the bounding box) to do this use the Group Component on the Transform Tab > Utility Panel.
The other approach is far more common in GH mentality. Use the Graft, right click the G input of Morph and select Graft from the Context Menu. This places all of the items in the List on to separate branches. Creating a list of lists (although these new list only have one item). When GH now tries to data match them it will apply the whole of the first geometry list (Only the Cuboid) to all of the target boxes and all of the second list (Cylinder) to the target boxes again.
I hope this helps…
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
ake a modest notice about the two new Ladybug components, one of which creates a 3d terrain shading mask and another one which visualizes and exports horizon angles. A terrain shading mask is essentially a diagram which maps the silhouette of the surrounding terrain (hills, valleys, mountains, tree tops...) around the chosen location, and account for the shading losses from the terrain. It can be used as a context_ input in mountainous or higher latitude regions for any kind of sun related analysis: sunlight hours analysis, solar radiation analysis, view analysis, photovoltaics/solar water heating sunpath shading...
My home town is an example of the shading caused by the terrain. Here is how it looks from the tallest building in the town:
And the created terrain shading mask:
A mask for any land location up to 60 degrees North can be created:
There will also be a support for a few major cities above this limit.
Both Terrain shading mask and Horizon angles components can be downloaded from here. An example .gh file can be found in here.
Component will prompt the user to download and copy certain files in order to be able to run.
It was created with assistance from Dr. Bojan Savric. Support on various issues was further given by: Dr. Graham Dawson, Dr. Alec Bennett, Dr. Ulrich Deuschle, Andrew T. Young, LiMinlu, Jonathan de Ferranti, Michal Migurski, Christopher Crosby, Even Rouault, Tamas Szekeres, Izabela Spasic, Mostapha Sadeghipour Roudsari, Dragan Milenkovic, Chen Weiqing, Menno Deij-van Rijswijk and gis.stackexchange.com community.
I hope somebody might find the components useful.…
simple, there are many symetries in 3 main planes. So I used arcs rotated 45° from the main planes and I generate a pentagon which was mirrored and rotated many times.
At the end there are 24 pentagons and 8 hexagons so 32 faces, 54 points/vertex and 84 edges.
It could generate some others tessalation styles
…
it seems that was this. Now all is working fine !
Glad that it worked! But I am still a bit worried. Gismo components only modify the gdal-data/osmconf.ini file and no other MapWinGIS file. So your MapWinGIS installation files should not be compromised. The fact that you did not get the "COM CLSID" error message when running the "Gismo Gismo" component suggests that MapWinGIS has been properly installed. So I wonder if the cause for the permanent "invalid shapes" warning has again something with the fact that your system is again not allowing the MapWinGIS to properly edit the osmconf.ini. Maybe this problem will appear again, and again, and reinstallation of MapWinGIS every time can be somewhat bothersome.
- About the terrain generation, is it possible to have the texture from google or other provider mapped onto the terrain surface from gismo component ? (Same as using the ladybug terrain generator in fact). I try to used the image extracted by ladybug component and then applied it to the gismo terrain but the texture is rotated by 90°.
The issue with the rotation can be solved by swapping/reversing the U,V directions of the terrain surface. A slightly more important issue is that terrain surface generated with Gismo "Terrain Generator" component might have a bit smaller radius than what the radius_ input required. This stems from the fact that the terrain data first needs to be downloaded in geographic coordinate system, and then projected. Some projecting issues may occur at the very edges of the projected terrain, so I had to slightly cut out the very edges of the terrain which results in the actual terrain diameters being slightly shorted in both directions. This means that if you apply the same satellite image from Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component to Gismo "Terrain Generator" component the results may not be the same.I attached below a python component which tries to solve this issue by extending the edges of Gismo "Terrain Generator" terrain, and then cutting them with the cuboid of the exact dimensions as the radius_ input. Have in mind that this extension of the original terrain at its edges is not a correct representation of the actual terrain in that location. But rather just an extension of the isoparameteric curve of the terrain surface. So basically: some 0 to 10% (0 to 10 percent of the width and length) of the terrain around all four edges is not the actual terrain for that location, but rather just its extension.The python component is located at the very right of the definition attached below.
Also, if you would like to use the satellite images from Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component along with "OSM shapes", sometimes you may find slight differences in position of the shapes. This is due to openstreetmap data not being based on Google Maps (that's what Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component is using), but rather on Bing, MapQuest and a few others.
- About the requiredKeys_ input of OSM shapes, I understand what you mean and your advice, but in most cases I use it, the component was working fine even without input. I think it's better to extract all tags, values and keys of the selected area, instead of searching for specific ones as I try to find all data related to what I want after, isn't it ? To check what keys are present on the area also.
Ineed, you are correct.I though you were trying to only create a terrain, 3d buildings and maybe find some school or similar 3d building, for these two locations. The recommendation I mentioned previously is due to shapefiles having a limit (2044) to how many keys it can contain. This requires further testing of some big cities locations with maybe larger radii, which I haven't performed due to my poor PC configuration. But in theory, I imagine that it may happen that a downloaded .osm file may have more than 2044 keys. In that case shapefile will only record 2044 of them, and disregard the others. That was my point.But again 2044 is a lot of keys, and I haven't been checking much this in practice. For example, when I set the radius_ to 1000 meters, and use your "3 Rue de Bretonvilliers Paris" location I get around 350 something keys, which is way below the 2044.Another reason why one should use the requiredKeys_ input is to make the Gismo OSM components run quicker: for example, the upper mentioned 350 something keys will result in 350 values for each branch of the "OSM shapes" component's "values" output.Which means if you have 10 000 shapes, the "OSM shapes" component will have 10 000 branches with 350 items on each branch (values). This can make all Gismo OSM components very heavy, and significantly elongate the calculation process.With requiredKeys_ input you may end up with only a couple of tens of items per each branch.Sorry for the long reply.…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 8:57am on June 11, 2017