ll geometry.
The difference with programs like Inventor is that they are made for production, regardless of the fabrication method. I won't go into detail about that, and instead focus on the modeling process.
In this little model, the starting point actually is a bit obvious, the foundation.
The only contents in the 3dm file are 27 lines. These indicate the location of each footing, and the direction of the tilt of each column. Everything else is defined in GH with the use of numbers as input parameters.
Needless to say, instead of those lines you could obviously generate lines and control the number of columns and panels, hence establish their layout, with any algorithmic or non-algorithmic criteria you please. That marks a major difference between GH and Inventor.
You can generate geometry with Inventor via scripting/customization (beyond iLogic), with transient graphics for visual feedback similar to GH's red-default previews. However Inventor's modeling functions are not set to input and output data trees. I won't go into detail on that, but suffice to say that the data tree associativity of GH was for me the first major difference I noticed. I've used other apps with node diagram interfaces like digital fusion for non-linear video editing since the late 90's, so the canvas did not call my attention when I first started using GH.
Anyways, here's a screen capture of the foundational lines:
In the first group of components, the centerlines of the rear columns are modeled:
And the locations in elevation for connection points are set. Those elevations were just numbers I copied from Excel, but you can obviously control that any way you please. I was just trying to model this quickly.
The same was done for the rear columns:
The above, believe it or not, took me the first 5 hours to get.
Here's a screen capture of what the model and definition looked like after 4 hours, not much:
If you're interested, next post I can get into the sketching part you mentioned, which is a bit cumbersome with GH, but not really.
I wouldn't say that using GH to do this little model was cumbersome, it just needed some thinking at the beginning. You do similar initial thinking when working with a feature-based modeler.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 12:44am on February 24, 2011
adrid/
http://www.24studiolab.com/#/
or write to:
24studiolab@gmail.com
Course will be variable (during the weekend or during the week) depending on the convenience of the assistants.
COURSE PROGRAMME (spanish)*
Rendimiento formal / Estructural
Galápagos, algoritmos genéticos
Kangaroo physics
Optimización mediante fuerzas fisicas
Form Finding
Surface Relaxation
Edición avanzada de malla
Isosurface and fractals surface
Karamba
Rendimiento energetico
Heliotrope / Ghowl
Geolocalización
Geco
Kangaroo shape optimization
* COURSE PROGRAMME may vary depending on the demand of the assistant
…
Added by 24StudioLab at 2:10am on December 26, 2013
the optimizing process I am using Karamba+Galapagos.
Unfortunately I am getting some errors when calculating the maximum displacement of the bridge, using the Karamba “analyze” component.
95% of the times (when moving a slider), it goes well. I am getting deformations of 100-200mm as expected, and the deformed shape in the Rhino view looks good.But in the last 5%, I get unreliable deformations of 50000mm or more. What I dont understand about this is that the deformed shape in the Rhino view still looks normal. Another weird thing is if I move the slider away from the position and then back to the same position again, I suddenly get the result of 100-200mm. It seems more or less randomly when it gives the strange results.
The model has over time become pretty big. When moving a slider, calculation time is about 5 to 10 sec.Could this be the reason for the errors? Any other ideas about what goes wrong?
Thank you in advance for your answer.Attached please find the GH file.
Best regards Soeren…
ce issue with Rhino and shouldn't make an issue with EnergyPlus but just to have cleaner geometries, I untrimmed base surfaces so zones are closed brep now.
I also noticed that when you are adding multiple openings to a surface, the surface doesn't show-up in the output of createHBZoneFromHBSurfaces. The surfaces are there though and show up once you explode the zone! Again should be a tolerance issue for join. I need to take a closer look to both of these.
Also, in a number of the zones you had wall surfaces connected to createZoneFromHBSurfaces both before and after adding glazing. I removed parent surfaces so you don't end up having duplicate surfaces.
Back to adjacency which was your question, the issue happens since you have couple of zones with the same name so component was assuming them to be the same zone so it wouldn't solve the adjacency (Yes! it shouldn't. That was a bug which is fixed now). I changed the names and now it should find the surfaces that you are looking for.
Moreover, once you solve the adjacency, next solveAdjacency won't overwrite the BC unless you set remCurrentAdj to True.
Mostapha…
greatly appreciate it!!
You can write the number of the question and write your answer next to it, example:
1) a
2) c
3) a) Washington University in St. Louis
4) 2 weeks (1week+1week shipping)
5) 130
6) b
7) b
The survey questions are as follows:
1)
Did you 3D print before?
5)
How much did it cost (in dollars)?
a.
Yes, for a school project
a.
Between 20 & 50
b.
Yes, for a personal project
b.
Between 50 & 80
c.
Between 80 & 120
2)
Print size
d.
Please specify if otherwise: _____ dollars
a.
Between 2 & 6 cubic inches
b.
Between 6 & 12 cubic inches
6)
Do you think the price was expensive?
c.
Between 12 & 20 cubic inches
a.
Not at all
d.
Please specify if otherwise: ____cubic inches
b.
A little bit expensive
c.
Very expensive
3)
Where did you print your object?
a.
School
7)
Were you satisfied with the printed object?
b.
Outside school: _________________
a.
Yes, it was a great print without problems
b.
Not bad, some issues
4)
How long did it take to print?
c.
I was not satisfied, very bad quality
a.
___ days
b.
___ weeks
Thank you very much to all!!
PS: If you did many 3D prints, you can post multiple answers.
Wassef…
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011
he picture (4).
Previously, I had a problem with generating intersections between the two directions of the beams, but a colleague helped me by extending beams, so there was no problem with lines of intersection. But this solution has generated curl (5) at the highest vertex geometry, which I ignored in order to repair it before printing, perhaps this mean my problem with my beam spread properly. Only when the beams is 19, does not jump no problem, but I still can not distribute them properly.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
I tried to show as simply as possible by removing or signing my code in GHX file.
Thank you in advance for your help
…
f my list.I don't understand why, but I guess I must be too young user ^^In the original list, i have a path {0;0;0;4} with two index and after the random node, {0;0;0;4} has 88 index.Items are not correct?I would have a comparable structure has the right list on my jpg (photomontage...)How I can do that?Thank you in advance
…
akes the linear regression of the Schroeder integral over 30 dB worth of decay. Whether it is T-15 or T-30, they all seek to estimate the RT, which is always always the time it takes for sound to decay 60 decibels.
The website has benchmarks, for your reference. You can find them under the 'Pachyderm' drop down menu, under 'Benchmarks'.
Your model may well require millions of rays to be accurate. It sounds like a very large space. I'm sorry if that is an unpleasant answer. Sometimes it does help to have a computer with more cores to help with this. I have gotten up to 90% processor usage on a 12 core machine before.
Arthur…
hat differ in shapes, sizes and height the facade would be a mess. Some spaces need some light while other can't have any. I would like to have full freedom of creation inside the building, to make it as functional as possible. Thats why i decided the parametric "skin" solution would be best. Since the location has industrial past (factories made of brick) i decided that brick would give interesting result.
I tried creating the definition on my own but since i lack skill in GH i got some problems (especially multiplication of bricks and the diffrence between each "level" (half a brick on y axis) caused problems for me.
I post my simple sketch explaining the idea of definition i would like to create (sorry about quality):
1 - Brep - I would like to use 25x12x6cm (classic brick) but as well experiment with diffrent shapes - like the one on the right with hole inside - that would give more light. Thats why i think the best solution would be using brep for this definition.
2- Multiplication - biggest problem for me - I don't know how tall the wall would be, what will be the final shape of Brep (brick) and that's why i would like to manipulate this with sliders as well. All the walls are flat (maybe it would be easier to use surface?). As i managed to multiply the bricks easy way i don't know how to gain control over height of the wall - for example that it is 30 bricks high, but has each second row moved on x axis by the distance of 1/2 brick. I tried using Series but with no success. Could you help me with that please?
3 - Rotation - i would like to use image sampler for that so i can "paint" where i want more sun and where i dont need it at all (black and white). The rotation has to be limited to 180 degrees as well. Obviously i didn't get here yet, but i never used image sampler so if you could give me some advice how to use component and how to create such images i would be really grateful.
4 - More of a concept thing - since the connection angles differ from 90 degrees i will have to figure out how to connect the parts of the wall at sides ;).
I would like to ask you for help with the defintion, since i am totally stuck at step 2. I post what i came up with so far. Thank you for your time and help!
PS. I post an image that is pretty similar to one of options i would like to check for my building.
…