cle
the 'Shape' is copied to all points
shapes are rotated randomly, plus or minus 'Angle' maximum
'Shape In Brep (ShapeIn)' is used to cull shapes that aren't within the circle
'Fast Loop' begins using 'MCX' (Multiple Curves Intersection)
first shape is added to 'D1' output and shapes intersecting it are culled
results minus first shape are passed to 'D0' of 'FastLoopEnd'
loop repeats until 'D0' list is empty
'D1' results are scaled down slightly (0.75) to leave more space around them
'Explode' results and return only the curved part, ignoring the base line that closes the shape
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 11:01pm on March 17, 2017
avid--this software is a pleasure to use, and David, you have done an amazing job. I also want to acknowledge it takes a lot of work to edit the software, and I understand that it can take a while before any changes are made.
Okay so here are some ideas:
Subcurve - just like subsurface, but based on 1-dimensional intervals
Map Values to Interval - a single component that could take a list of values, an interval, and would scale the list of values to match the input interval.
A Dispatch component that could dispatch according to a list of output indices. Instead of just True/False, you could output things based on a pattern using 0/1/2/3/4, etc. This component would be the inverse of Weave.
A text object parameter and data type, with some basic ways to edit it.
More string manipulation operations, allowing for easy editing with string subintervals, and character counts, and basic text formatting (line return, etc.).
I really really really wish the List Item component had a default index value of "0". That is what I input into it 80% of the time.
That's all for now. If any of these ideas are already adequately addressed, please let me know. Thanks.
…
ellation tool of GeomGym in Grasshopper.
The design looks for a new brick topology which is in the shape of two generative elements of Weaire-Phelan structure; dodecahedron and tetrakaidecahedron. An innovative approach is taken by applying varying types of solutions and details to the new brick elements.
There are other good examples and winners which are worth looking into. Our sheets can be downloaded from here.
All comments appreciated.
We would like to thank Jon Mirtschin and anyone who contributed to this tool.
Xue Ai and Serdar Aydin…
try now to integrate Geco in an interdisciplinary architectural engineering studio: hoping we can show you some nice applications of your tool, I'll keep you update and sending now details by e-mail. Here the file (very welcome to be shared). It most probably contais trivial errors by me, thanks for helping and giving some tip! Gr. Michela
FILE:
Ok, right, I see the outputs update correctly. Origin of problems must be in some different mistake I do:
- Incident radiation: I am not sure I understand what is going on: why I get so many 'not a number' ? (The Galapagos report is full of NaNs).
Bio-Diversity: 0.887 Genome[0], Fitness=NaN, Genes [89% · 44%] { Record: Too many fitness values supplied } ...
Genome[7], Fitness=NaN, Genes [74%] { Record: No fitness value was supplied } ....
Genome[9], Fitness=NaN, Genes [37% · 11%] { Record: Genome was mutated to avoid collision Record: Too many fitness values supplied }
- Daylight calculations: the geometry accumulates withouth deleting the previous models. As a consequance, results almost do not change after few varations (so, outputs get updated but do not vary). In current daylight definition: the first object being imported is the one where the grid has to fit; its setting makes it cancelling all the other objects during import. All the others, do not delete anything when imported. When running loops (manual or GA) that vary parameters, the entire geometry do not get cancelled - so I guess the loop does not pass back by the cancelling step, but imports only the geometry which has been varied by the parameters using the setting of that import component only? I will then try again by changing the order of the operations, but if you have specfic tips, let me know.
THANKS!
…
Simpsons episode were Bart goes into a mall and in the time he goes in and out of a shop all others have been turned into Starbucks.
I personally don't like it but you can't say they are crushing all competitors because, as far as i know, all owners of those software packages voluntarily sold their property for a good price. I would actually be more worried that an antitrust lawsuit was filed against Autodesk.
For example, this is what happened with Rockefeller's Standard Oil:
The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.[32]
The court argued, in essence, that Standard Oil was a "large" company with many divisions, and if those divisions were in reality separate companies, there would be more competition. The court made no mention at all of the industry's economic performance; of supposed predatory pricing; of whether industry output had been restrained, as monopoly theory holds; or of any other economic factors relevant to determining harm to consumers. The mere fact that Standard Oil had organized some thirty separate divisions under one consolidated management structure (a trust) was sufficient reason to label it a monopoly and force the company to break up into a number of smaller units.
To economists, "predatory pricing" is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity, either.
In other words, the organizational structure that was responsible for the company's great efficiencies and decades-long price cutting and product improving was seriously damaged. Standard Oil became much less efficient as a result, to the benefit of its less efficient rivals and to the detriment of consumers.
From: http://mises.org/daily/2317
(Beware, that site is very ideologically charged)…
points within the bounds of the site boundary and use each location as an attractor point controlling a variable at each point in the grid (radius of a circle/height of a cube/colour based on a gradient etc.).This would be based on proximity to the attractor points with the effect of each attractor point essentially scaled by the percentage associated with it. For example a location with 88% visitor rates would have a more dramatic effect than a location with 26% visitor rates.
I've had a bit of a play around but can't seem to get beyond the point of what is shown in basic point attractor tutorials online. I'm definitely a novice.
Here's how I figured it would be done:
1) Create a grid of source points within a boundary curve.
2) Select 18 pre-defined attractor points.
2) Measure the distance between the source points and the attractor points.
3) Invert this data so that variables increase with proximity rather than decrease.
4) Give each of the attractor points a strength value from 1-100% based on the visitor rates.
5) Use the scaled data to control a variable at each of the source points.
6) Create some way to control the drop-off rate of the effect from each point.
It is at step 3 that I get completely lost.
I hope my description is clear. Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Adam
…
button to generate such complicated and unruled geometry. Seriously, if you don't understand a geometry, how can you solve the structural needs and the bloody fabrication. Giant fast prototyping machines doesn't exist!
In a era where ressources and energy is getting scarce, I don't understand this trend of fancy no sence look like organic buildings. They just look organic in our human perception. Nature builds things with define physical and biochemicals rules, and this is why when they grow, they look like that. You should study Frei Otto publication from the 80's.. the IL publications. They were using physical models to generate physical structures that would be build in the physical world. Computers and softwares are dangerous as we distach from reality.
We put all this effort to generate these fancy forms, but no brain is put in structural optimization, energy efficiency (for instance in relation with the sun, or other natural elements)
IT technology goes faster than the time we have to reflect about it. (not talking about the technics).
As Frei Otto told me personally in our last discussion (talking about philosophy and architecture): " We have to define the OPEN QUESTIONS. Once these questions will be defined, you'll get answers".
I think we are getting to a question here: " How to use this technology to solve problems in Architecture?" Before that " What are the real problems in architecture?"
Maybe David should make a component for that? For instance, a button that could solve the loging and infrastructure problems for these millions of people living in the slums of Mumbai...
What about that Krish Raj?…
igner called Christophe Barreau.
http://www.christophe-barreau.fr/
We design sail catamarans from 40' to 80' and occasionally some other stuff.
One may know it's a quite uncertain activity so I find myself tacking upwind on other seas from time to time, such as product design and jewelry. I also have side projects with mates regarding hi-fi or RC planes.
As for "static" architecture I had a couple experiences working on large "complex" buildings. Sadly French architects are not very familiar with BIM, parametric or even precise 3d modeling so I've been hired to introduce GH in the workflow.
I'm an un-authorized rhino trainer, sorry to say, but I just love teaching and meeting new faces, although I'm not as devoted as Danny ;)
I've been using GH both for modeling and analysis for about three years now and I'll daresay I became pretty good at it... I'm not a geek at all but it's just so useful, and it's really worth it sometimes €€€!…
ke 20 samples per day, 50 days out of the year for 1000 samples) from each panel and calculate the % of occlusion. Allow that % to be the % "open" of each panel. Design the opening in each panel to be something cool and proportional. Profit.
You could even break it down by a finite number of available panel types(say 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% open) and create an efficient production. All of these things can be paramterized to allow for more samples or more panel types as needed or based on your calculation limits.
The only exception would be proper environmental analysis, say, if you were trying to reduce solar gain in summer and allow for it in winter. You would want to split this calculation between when you need to be gaining heat and where you want to be shading. Then extrapolate the percentage between the two. You may even need a gradient of heat gain through fall/spring. The possibilities depend on how much you know about the mechanical requirements of the area/building.
That would be my approach. If I have more time tonight I will try and put something together on this as its been something I'd like to have in my back pocket....
Edit: You would also need to analyze the angle of incidence as it could have an effect on the amount of solar gain.....…