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
lla progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse
___________________________________________________________________________________
luogo:
Sala meeting Hotel Mercure Milano Centro Piazza Oberdan 12 – 20129 MILANO
Scadenza iscrizioni: 12 Novembre 2011 – ore 15.00
___________________________________________________________________________________
info e prenotazioni:
Le Penseur (coordinamento formazione)
info@lepenseur.it
081 564 21 84
347 548 71 78
quote di partecipazione e programma (formato PDF)
ulteriori informazioni sui corsi PLUG > IT
___________________________________________________________________________________
PROGRAMMA DEL CORSO
GIORNO_01
10.00 – 10.30: presentazione workshop
10.30 – 11.30: introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio
11.30 – 13.00: Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica
13.00 – 14.00: break | lunch
14.00 – 16.00: nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow
16.00 – 18.00: esercitazione
GIORNO_02
10.00 – 12.00: funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati
12.00 – 15.00: analisi e definizione di curve e superfici
GIORNO_03
10.00 – 12.00: definizione di griglie e pattern complessi
12.00 – 13.00: trasformazioni geometriche, paneling
13.00 – 14.00: break | lunch
14.00 – 16.00: esercitazione
16.00 – 18.00: attrattori, image sampler
GIORNO_04
10.00 – 13.00: data tree: gestione di dati complessi
13.00 – 14.00: break | lunch
14.00 – 15.00: digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi
15.00 – 18.00: nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni e posizionamento su piani di taglio per macchine a controllo numerico CNC…
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
basis" problem ... all of a sudden - quite recently - a girl posted the MITESIGF (Most Important Thread Even Seen In Grasshopper Forums). She doesn't even realized that: she's novice:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/array-1
4. Why this MITESIGF is MITESIGF? For 2 reasons:
4.a: Wooden pairs (Beams) Profile Curves (belonging in some tree) MUST allow individual control on a per "item basis" (OK, that's obvious) - see Images posted in the thread. No attractor (or any other "global" policy) can cut the mustard here (to tell you the truth this happens in 99% of pure engineering cases, but they appear very rarely in GH Forums - if at all, mind). If the profile curves are defined with 5 points (or 9 for the double thing) we need "on-the-fly" control over this Array (like the radii in your Sphere Manipulator) :
4.b: Critical Bottom-to-Top issues arise: Create a "global" topology (call it "parent") - the beams - and then place real-life "components" (call them "childs") that affect (most probably) the "parent". OK, that's impossible to do with GH/Rhino (peace of cake with CATIA/Microstation) but you can "approximate" things up to a point. Alternatively: you can "trigger" some interest from GH/Rhino developers if they have any AEC market(s) in mind.
Topic 4.a requires the master-to-slave slider thingy (iterate over branches (index slider:master) > reset the 5 values (value slider:slave) > modify them on the fly > save > increase/decrease branch > ...).
Other than that my definitions are far more challenging than this simple case ... but ... anyway ... long is the path (and hilly).
more soon.
best, The Troll
…
ails.
Some word about the mesh... (see Image_01)
I took a flat 4 points NURBS surface as imput (very easy, it defines the total area of my pavilion) and some points (that defines the contact with the ground).
Then I extracted a grid of points from the NURBS (Surface_Util_Divide surface) and compared 'em with the contol points, in order to associate to each grid's point its own attractor (Vector_Point_Closest Point).
Than I moved the points down. I used the distance from each point to its attractor (inverted) as amplitude for the vector of the movement, in order to say: the nearer you are to the control point, the more intense your movement will be. During this operation I've passed the distances' data list into a graph mapper (Params_Special_Graph Mapper), in order to regulate in a very intuitive and interactive way the shaping of my canopy.
At the end of the process I asked GH for a simple Delaunay mesh (Mesh_Triangulation_Delaunay Mesh). It's a very cool command, I believe!!!
Ok, now some word about the component, it's design and it's repetition/adaptation to the mesh...
(see Image_02)
I took the mesh and extracted components on first and faces's information on second. Then I selected and separated the vertexes (1°, 2°, 3°) of each triangular face into threee well defined list.
Then I re-created the triangles' edges. Please pay attention because it's not the same if you use output information from Delaunay components, because here we need a justapposition of edges where triangles touches each others.
After this work I joined the edges and found their centroid. At the same time I found the mid point of each edge.
Now the component... (see Image_03)
It' a little bit longer to describe: I'll try to be synthetic.
Substantially it is a loft from a curve to a point, repeated three times for each triangle (Surface_Freeform_Extrude Point). The point is an elevation of the centroid of the triangle (you can choose if the exstrusion has a single height or it's related to an attractor. In my case it was fixed). The curve is combination of things. There's an arch, which starts on the edge (there's an offset from the corner) end terminates on the same edge (on the other side, obviously). While it's generation the arch passes through a third point which belong to another segment. This last connects the mid point of the original edge (base triangle) with the centroid. The result is a kind of polyline, with two segments and an arch. If you go back to the image of the component that I posted probably you'll understand what I'm saying better than with the definition.
The posit…
lla progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse
___________________________________________________________________________________
luogo:
Sala meeting Holiday Inn Inn Turin C.so Francia Piazza Massaua 21 – TORINO
Scadenza iscrizioni: 25 Novembre 2011 – ore 15.00
___________________________________________________________________________________
info e prenotazioni:
Le Penseur (coordinamento formazione)
info@lepenseur.it
081 564 21 84
347 548 71 78
quote di partecipazione e programma (formato PDF)
ulteriori informazioni sui corsi PLUG > IT
___________________________________________________________________________________
PROGRAMMA DEL CORSO:
GIORNO_01 | 01 Dicembre 2011
10.00 – 10.30: presentazione workshop
10.30 – 11.30: introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio
11.30 – 13.00: Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica
13.00 – 14.00: break
14.00 – 16.00: nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow
16.00 – 18.00: esercitazione
GIORNO_02 | 02 Dicembre 2011
10.00 – 12.00: funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati
12.00 – 13.00: analisi e definizione di curve e superfici
13.00 – 14.00: break
14.00 – 16.00: analisi e definizione di curve e superfici
16.00 – 18.00: definizione di griglie e pattern
GIORNO_03 | 03 Dicembre 2011
10.00 – 12.00: trasformazioni geometriche, paneling
12.00 – 13.00: image sampler
13.00 – 14.00: break
14.00 – 18.00: data tree: gestione di dati complessi
GIORNO_04 | 04 Dicembre 2011
10.00 – 12.00: digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi
12.00 – 13.00: nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni e posizionamento su piani di taglio per macchine a controllo numerico CNC
13.00 – 14.00: break
14.00 – 18.00: esercitazione…
DP ($$$ aside), GC, and Grasshopper. Arthur’s original question is very important
and the exact question (and hopefully answer) I was hoping to find on a
forum.
“How to take intelligent 3D parametric generative design models (scripting, etc.) into 2D documents?" Or, deliver the 3D design for evaluation, bid, construction, etc.
I am intrigued by Jon’s comments in the same thread and would like to know how I can learn more about the process (and
pitfalls) of turning over a 3D digital generative models to a contractor/fabricator.
Are there any industry guidelines established I could use as a reference to guide our firm through this type of uncharted territory?
Arthur’s question is very reminiscent of 10 years ago when I was frustrated with the amount of time spent on the development of a 3D model design (physical and/or virtual) only to have to wipe the table clean and start the process all over again in 2D in order to document the project for delivery. From this I jumped head first into BIM and Revit, vowing never to go back to unintelligent 2D line work. I am now working on Bentley software (v8i: Microstation and Bentley Architecture) with the access and desire to venture into Generative Components. I am very intrigued by Rhino/Grasshopper primarily with the apparent ease of use and available resources assisting in the learning process – something not really available with Bentley.
In hindsight, as I am doing my software research I think the current use of Revit and BA (Bentley Architecture) are more of a “bridge”
between the past (decades of digital 2D work, i.e. AutoCAD) and where hopefully
we all will be someday in the near future (100% 3D modeling, i.e. Digital
Project??). Without having the experience
it would appear that DP/CATIA (PLM software) are closer to this than any other
type of software. As complicated as the
industry standards are for the automobile and airline industry, I feel we
(architectural industry and others) are heading in a similar direction with
total understanding (PLM/ Evidence Based Design) of a design (a whole other topic). If anything I think the market will begin to
demand it sooner or later.
Gehry (DP) article NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/business/11gehry.html
I know these type of broad discussions (software vs. software) can be blown out of proportion on forums, but I am would like to read
the pulse of those who are already in the trenches (using Grasshopper, CATIA, Digital Project, Generative Components, others??) and hear your thoughts. Just as valuable would be other threads,
industry articles/reviews of 3D parametric generative design software.
Thanks,
Boyd…