y case. Here's the thing. There is this subject at my university where we are assigned a famous building and we need to recreate it in Rhino. We're given bonus points if we manage to code some interesting part of it in Grasshopper. So far so good, I'm doing pretty well with Rhino and by far I am happy with the results I've achieved with modelling the given building. Harbin Opera House by MAD is the building I'm trying to model. There is one particular surface:I've built this surface in Rhino and now I'm trying to map pyramids on it. Not only have the pyramids to be different in height, but their height has to be dependent on the curvature of the surface. I'm getting some results but it seems to be exactly the opposite of what I need. I want to have higher/spikier pyramids where my curvature analysis shows red/blue and lower/slopier pyramids where the analysis shows green colour.At the moment I'm not really sure how the code I have works, but it seems that the height of the pyramids is dependent on a distance from a point in space to the projection of the cap-point of a pyramid.Here're my Rhino and Grasshopper files:surface1.3dm
surface1.ghI'd be grateful if someone of you guys could handle my problem. I've got one more issue with this surface, but once I get a solution to the first 1 will let know what the second one is.Thanks in advance and keep well!…
are invisible in the picture.
So what you see it's a common band that has lost all those characteristics of the original in order to protect the process.
We also did an "invisible setting" prototype which has built in Flexibility.
If you are in the jewelry industry you would know what I mean and it is close to a miracle.
It's a shame I can not share details and this is why I am planning my next major work on something 10 times more complex then this, at least.
It's will be for my own business and for the jewelry industry as well.
I hate to tease people and then not to be able to produce anything more than an image.
But I thought it would be better than nothing, at least for jeweler designers, so they can see that there are more and more users and that complexity it is not something to shy away from, and it's worth the time spent because the returns on production are far larger than for special orders and this is why GH is useful.
We can design a piece of jewelry usually in less then 1 hour, hence GH is not really worth the time.
But for production with so many variables (Finger sizes controlling most of the outcome together with stone sizes etc.) then GH it's a MUST!
I really appreciate everyone's comments and suspicions and I understand why.
99% of the people out there do not really understand the complexity of jewelry at the industrial level. It' s not just form but the post-production that's the killer.
This industry it's still an hybrid of technology and art with, and due to the lack of the old school pros, unfortunately, we face very lousy and unpredictable execution in the post production (after the casting process). This leaves you with a design process and intention that requires a lot of control over every possible variant of the object.
One wrong design aspect it's multiplied thousands of times at the benches (for every single piece) = bad profits!
It sound more serious that it is but very few companies are willing to do so (delivering good product vs low quality and this also happens because the consumer is not longer aware of the difference. So, who does keep quality, it's only because of integrity, third party QA or just pride).
This is way GH is invaluable. This is why that Def looks like out of proportion for that (Visual) simple band.
It is because there are dozens and dozens of variable effecting everything else. In fact it is not even complete as it is in order to cover everything but the most critical ones.
Sorry for the long replays. I am an instructor and a professional jeweler by trade since I was very young and I love to teach, so I overflow with explanations... and Components :)).
Next time it will be "in the open" as they say...…
uments:
1. You are targeting CATIA don't you? (not exactly tomorrow but ... soon) and/or SolidWorks (hello C# haven't we met before?).
2. You MUST deal with nested block instances instead of what you are trying to do right now (I'm talking about the real MERO things not abstract Lines and points). This is not doable with GH components I'm afraid (but it's rather easy with code).
3. You MUST deal with RDBMS in order to keep track with what's going on in your company per project per case per designer (who sells that bolt? what's his cat name? is he a reliable supplier? what I'm doing in life? ... that sort of "queries"). At this point: CATIA is 1% CAD things and 99% PLM stuff (Product Life cycle Management). We do want that since it's 21st century running don't we?.
I hear you: but these are 3 arguments ... indeed but ... hey who's counting? he he.
Method:
A. This def attached has a very simple C# that gets mesh Pts and makes a nice U/V style collection of points (DataTree in plain English).
B. Then we go to that umbrella sticks thingy: we can calculate anything (already the thing does "some") plus your collections of divided points (with the right way, he he) VS a given node: you said (Skype) that you want to calculate angles with these (from 2 to 6) in mind: obvious since you are doing real-life MERO things.
C. Then we could calculate the appropriate Planes for PlaneToPlane transformations: get a nested instance definition (the red things that you've showed to me yesterday) placed at 0,0,0 (Plane.WorldXY) and put in in every Plane collection related with every node (clash defection is an obvious must).
Case resolved, closed: what about that Vodka?
More in Skype
…
merely automates finding clear intersections between pairs of objects and then splits the objects along those intersection *curves*, deletes the trims, then joins the remains, and cycles on. But within the confusing Rhino Settings tolerance value, wherever surfaces actually just sort of come closely together, there *is* *no* clear intersection curve. So it bugs out and stops working EVERY time you try more than a dozen or two spheres.
Some software can do this by switching to volumetric pixels (voxels). $9K-$30K Geomagic Freeform is an example of this. It also fails sometimes, often due to memory issues, as you can imagine since it needs to fill all inner space of each sphere definition with 3D pixels.
Materialize Magics for $16K can often handle such Booleans well. It will take a seeming lifetime to figure out such often pirate software kludges though.
One thing you can try though is to simply drape a mesh or NURBS plane onto the top of your spheres.
There's a well known *reason* your Booleans are failing. Nobody here has yet even hinted at it:
The main reason is that Rhino/Grasshopper developers don't care about the human element. The math exists to make this work very fast, every time. It just has to join things *right*, incorporating human knowledge of kissing surfaces, instead of acting stupidly, like some pocket calculator. But that would involve hacks that make 99% of complex Booleans work instead of 10%, and we can't have that since it will be SLOWER for the other 1% that just happen to have no nearly kissing or really kissing surfaces.
You could also use the new Cocoon plugin to do a surface *around* your structures, with a given radius of extension beyond the spheres, then offset that surface back the same radius. That is 100% robust, but won't offer quite as sharp of intersections, more rounded, like most everybody wants anyway.
You can *test* Boolean failures, by running a Grasshopper intersection command, to see the intersection curves, and zoom in to see how badly many of them are, all knotted, or twisted, or even with gaps, often with gaps.
It's a math problem nobody at McNeel wants to solve, sorry.
Just write a check for $25K and spend six months taking notes, like I did, and you can merge your simple spheres finally.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:33pm on October 20, 2015
ther math and logic. i can usually conceptualise what i want to do and cobble some semi working thing together but don't know which components to use and how to patch it. so i'm super happy to have someone who knows what he's doing to find this interesting.
and i'm glad you mention the fanned frets again, there is one input parameter that's still missing for the multiscale frets to be fully parametric, it's the angle of the nut or which fret should be straight. it depends a bit on personal preferences and playing posture what is more comfortable. so being able to adjust this easily would be cool. again i have no idea how the maths for that work or if you can just rotate each fret the same amount around it's middle point. The input either as fret number (for the straight fret) or as a simple slider from bridge to nut should do as input setting.
Here are the two extremes and the middle ground:
i've been thinkin today while analysing your patches and cleaning up my mess what exactly the monster should do.
Here are the input parameters needed, i think it's the complete list
scale length low E string
scale length high e string
fret angle/straight fret
string width at nut
string width at bridge
number of frets
fretboard overhang at nut (distance from string to fretboard bounds)
fretboard overhang at last fret
string gauges
string tensions
fretboard radius at nut (for compound radius fretboard radius at bridge is calculated with the stewmac formula)
fretwire crown width
fretwire crown height
action height at nut (distance between bottom of string and fretwire crown top)
action height at last fret
pickup 1 neck position
pickup 2 middle position
pickup 3 bridge position
nut width
the pickup positions should be used to draw circles for the magnet poles on each string so they are perfectly aligned and can be used for the pickup flatwork construction. ideally they would need a rotation control aligning the center line of the pickup so it's somewher between the last fret angle and bridge angle. personally i do this visually depending on the design i'm looking for, some people have huge theories on pickup positioning but personally i don't believe in it.
that should result in everything needed to quickly generate all the necessary construction curves or geometry for nut/fingerboard/frets/pickups. this is the core of what makes a guitar work, the more precise this dynamic system is the better the guitar plays and sounds.
i posted another thread trying to understand how i could use datasets form spreadsheets,databse, csv to organize the input parameters. What would make sense for the strings for example is hook into a spreadsheet with the different string sets, i attached one for the d'Addario NYXL string line which basically covers all combos that make sense.
The string tension is an interesting one, and implmenting it would sure be overkill albeit super interesting to try. it should be possible to extrapolate from the scale length of each string what the tension for a given string gauge of that string would be so that you could say 'i want a fully balanced set' or 'heavy top light bottom) and it would calculate which SKU from d'addario would best match the required tension. All the strings listed in the spreadsheet are available as single strings to buy.
i'm trying to reorganize everything which helps me understand it. i just discovered the 'hidden wires' feature which is great since once i understood what a certain block does or have finished one of my own, i can get the wires out of the way to carry on undistracted. a bit risky to hide so many wires but it makes it so much easier not to get completely lost :-)
btw, the 'fanned fret' term is trademarked, some guy tried to patent it in the 80's which is a bit silly since it has been done for centuries. there is a level of sophistication above this as well, check out http://www.truetemperament.com/ and that really is something else. it really is astounding how superior the tuning is on those wigglefrets, the problem is that it's rather awkward for string bending and also you can't easily recrown or level the frets when they are used. …
e matching with a dedicated component which creates combinations of items. You can find the [Cross Reference] component in the Sets.List panel.
When Grasshopper iterates over lists of items, it will match the first item in list A with the first item in list B. Then the second item in list A with the second item in list B and so on and so forth. Sometimes however you want all items in list A to combine with all items in list B, the [Cross Reference] component allows you to do this.
Here we have two input lists {A,B,C} and {X,Y,Z}. Normally Grasshopper would iterate over these lists and only consider the combinations {A,X}, {B,Y} and {C,Z}. There are however six more combinations that are not typically considered, to wit: {A,Y}, {A,Z}, {B,X}, {B,Z}, {C,X} and {C,Y}. As you can see the output of the [Cross Reference] component is such that all nine permutations are indeed present.
We can denote the behaviour of data cross referencing using a table. The rows represent the first list of items, the columns the second. If we create all possible permutations, the table will have a dot in every single cell, as every cell represents a unique combination of two source list indices:
Sometimes however you don't want all possible permutations. Sometimes you wish to exclude certain areas because they would result in meaningless or invalid computations. A common exclusion principle is to ignore all cells that are on the diagonal of the table. The image above shows a 'holistic' matching, whereas the 'diagonal' option (available from the [Cross Reference] component menu) has gaps for {0,0}, {1,1}, {2,2} and {3,3}:
If we apply this to our {A,B,C}, {X,Y,Z} example, we should expect to not see the combinations for {A,X}, {B,Y} and {C,Z}:
The rule that is applied to 'diagonal' matching is: "Skip all permutations where all items have the same list index". 'Coincident' matching is the same as 'diagonal' matching in the case of two input lists which is why I won't show an example of it here (since we are only dealing with 2-list examples), but the rule is subtly different: "Skip all permutations where any two items have the same list index".
The four remaining matching algorithms are all variations on the same theme. 'Lower triangle' matching applies the rule: "Skip all permutations where the index of an item is less than the index of the item in the next list", resulting in an empty triangle but with items on the diagonal.
'Lower triangle (strict)' matching goes one step further and also eliminates the items on the diagonal:
'Upper Triangle' and 'Upper Triangle (strict)' are mirror images of the previous two algorithms, resulting in empty triangles on the other side of the diagonal line:
…
lts.
In the visualization, points is an interesting option. It's a matter of aesthetics I guess, I go with surfaces :) Also what you can try is selecting Filters -> Slice (you can also find it in the icons above the pipeline viewer), in the Slice options below the pipeline press Z normal and on the Z coordinate press some height relevant to the buildings (e.g. 1.75m a typical human scale). That would show you the flow around the buildings on that height. Experiment with selecting other normals and values. Keep playing with the filters there's some cool things in there. Also you can check out the mailing list and extensive paraview documentation.
Concerning the errors I apologize because I just downloaded your case.
It appears that the decomposeParDict is not included in the system folder. I am not sure if this is due to BF not going through the whole workflow yet or an ommission on our side. Please feel free to add it in Github. I will also note it down and pass it to Mostaph to check. In the meantime please find attached a VERY detailed decomposeParDict file. I took the liberty to set it at 4 processors (the numberOfSubDomains value) and also selected (that is uncommented) the scotch decomposition method. It's the easiest method to use since it is automatic and doesn't require any more inputs on how the domain is decomposed on the x,y,z directions (which would require you to change values in the attached file).
Now, the different folders created are simply snapshots of the current solution at the specific timestep. To control how often the solver is saving change the writeInterval number in the controlDict file. You can also change almost all these values on the fly, while OF is running.
Finally, concerning the other errors of parafoam it seems somehow parafoam is reading the intial condition names instead of actual results from the solution files and it doesn't like it.
Does this happen only when you open the case (i.e. at 0 time) or does it also happen when you move to an other timestep?
Also, are you using paraFoam, paraview or the paraFoam -builtin method?
The extension of the paraFoam file seems to be .foam which means you are probably using the built in viewer. That might be the issue but I'm not sure.
Can you try running paraview, navigate to your case folder, open the .foam file and see if there is still an error?
Also, if it isn't much trouble can you zip one of the time folders and attach it here? I'd like to take a look at what's inside to check against what the error report says.
Once again thanks for testing!
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
mmon.sdk ,but i herad its used in rhino5.
or example: the book grasshopper primer second edition ,page 98
i dont know what is the "doc.absolutetolerance" and where i can find about it....i dont kow it should be a class or a fuction,i tried to search the rhino4. net sdk,i cant find it ....maybe its my searching problem.
but according to the grasshopper primer, i indeed know many kind of Variables,many functions,basic structure, loops, and conditions,and what is onutil.xxxx and rhutil.xxxx.but i found all this imformation is not helpful enough to me when reading the examples downloaded from many disscussions.when i found a new variable or new funcion,i dont know where i can find the introduction about them,such as the upper coding:"doc.absolutetolerance".i tried to use the auto complete such as
dim xxxx as oncurve
xxxx. to find the class oncurve's funtions and variables ,but its too uneffcient.
-----------------------------------------------
And,i dont know the difference between the components vb script and dotnet vb script....
because i found when i type onutil. the auto complete has noting appear...and the variables declaring is not the same. in vb script dim xxxx as curve but in dotnet vb script its dim xxxx as oncurve,which is the same as the grasshopper primer teached me...but i guess.... the vb script component is just like the rhinoscript(not the same),and the dotnet vb script is more powerful than it. am i right?
------------------------------------------------
at last i dont know these.
Imports System Imports System.IO Imports System.Xml Imports System.Data Imports System.Drawing Imports System.Reflection Imports System.Collections Imports System.Windows.Forms Imports Microsoft.VisualBasic Imports System.Collections.Generic Imports System.Runtime.InteropServices
when i search google about them,the introduction about them is too professinal for me to understand......i just want to know what i can do by using them ...
-------------------------
sorry for disturbing you so much!!!
best regards!
yours truly
YUAN.T
…
d the fact that one pipe goes out and one goes in, that the surface normal direction is opposite for the two surfaces? Based on an earlier thread, you should know why by now. The two curves have opposite directions (again!); see the white arrows using Rhino 'Analyze | Direction'?
As before, you can fix that by flipping one curve to match the other. HOWEVER, you connected your curves directly to the 'Divide' components instead of using 'Crv' geometry params - bad form. And as before, you "fixed it" by reversing the list of starting points ('S' input to 'BiArc'). Better like this - 'Crv' params are internalized, no need for Rhino file:
Well, well! That didn't fix the opposite surface normals after all! Trust me, though, using geometry params and being conscious about matching curve directions is "best practice". But I haven't lofted 'BiArc' curves for awhile, it's late and I want to move on. OH! I just noticed that you reversed the 'Z' direction for one half of the 'BiArc' - that explains it:
Moving on... You've basically got it, though I would do it differently - same result, like this:
I haven't really explained surface normal vectors - can you figure it out from here? One more little wrinkle (Normal_2017Mar17b.gh):
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 12:03am on March 18, 2017