ion technologies offer a completely new way to think and approach design, architecture and urban planning.
. . .
The ADVANCED ARCHITECTURE SUMMER SCHOOL organised in Paris by VOLUMES coworking, NOUMENA architecture and architect/teacher/designer Francesco Cingolani in partnership with the prestigious École Nationale des Ponts et Chaussées is a 3 weeks learning experience designed as an immersive journey in social innovation, computational design, digital fabrication and collaborative culture.
Details and informations for applicants> volumesparis.org/summerschool2015…
r).
http://www.agrob-buchtal.de/en/cd/produkte/produkte_seiten_13045.ht...
2. 1 puts some "modular Z" increment puzzles (for more than obvious reasons). Additionally the excavation cost VS any ECO-benefits ... (heat exchangers in the foundation blah blah). OK that means that the footprint it's also modular., not to mention the whole composition (potentially).
3. So: use the projection ONLY for defining where a given footprint meets the terrain (see the yellow and blue things in V2) and then LOFT pairs (see PlanA, B) of profiles into 2 DISTINCT portions ("solids" so to speak): (a) the basement (or at least something where some potential partitions could being classified as "underground" spaces), (b) the classic building.
4. By doing 3 ... keep an eye on 2 as well (Don't forget the classic minor terrain "adjustments" around each building (meaning usage or "tmp" solids), access roads/pavements (ditto), potential connection of basements (parking), soil stabilization issues, bad seismic behavior on unevenly(Z) formed basements etc etc).…
, and made the below definition to try it out. (lots of components to draw a line, but I'm just trying to understand the equation)
I had been searching for advice on some geometry topics worth exploring for a class, and now I'm in the class and the teacher wants me to start by learning about splines in general (not nurbs). I just spent the day learning linear spline interpolation, then quadratic, then cubic. I didn't try working them by hand yet, but I'm getting the concepts. It seems cubic is the lowest degree where you can get C2 continuity, which makes it smooth. I read over parameterization and how that simplifies the number of equations. I read about space curves, and then the differences between Hermite, Catmull-Rom, and Cardinal spline, but then got tired and had a cocktail.
So I guess I'm looking for any direction or advice on how to understand parametric curves in 3d space, and how they can be defined (splines or otherwise). Thanks!!!
…
creating the structural frame, finding the endpoints, linking these endpoints with curves and afterwards lofting the surfaces between the curves.
The results were quite nice, however, the procedure is very time consuming and inefficient. There is just too much copy-pasting involved.
(see attached file: "Old Attempts.zip" )
Mesh relaxation:
I have later on used Daniel Piker's tutorials on Mesh Relaxation and realized that this might be the way to go.
The link to these online tutorials on wewanttolearn.net is:
https://wewanttolearn.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/mesh-relaxation-kangaroo-tutorial/
His tutorials, however, only deal with mesh boxes which are ideal cubes. He then joins them together in various directions, but it is under 90 degrees angle.
( see attached file: "Daniel Pikers Examples" )
What I would like to achieve:
I want my bridges to go in all directions and angles, not just under 90 degree angle.
Ideally I would like to make a square (polygon) follow a curve (which moves in all axis) at certain number of division points. I would then loft these squares into a mesh and use that shape as a mesh box. I would later use this mesh box and relax it the same way as Daniel Piker used the cubes in his tutorial. The anchor points are only the vertices of the squares which create the lofted mesh box.
( see attached file: "New Attempts" )
As you can see below this procedure works even if the curve is moving in all directions not only along xy axis. There are, however, many problems connected to it.
The problem:
Despite all the effort I cannot seem to come up with a design where I would be able to draw a random curve which would be the guideline for my mesh box and then apply this box to one definition in order to relax the mesh and create the shape that I want. Without this I am again forced into a lot of copy pasting as the final mesh box is made out of several sections.
Also is there any way I could make the final resulting mesh a bit smoother? Increasing the number of mesh faces is probably the only way, right?
Thank you guys so much for any potential help.
All best,
Luka
…
) function if you've already got a boolean value.
This expression:
x < 12
results in exactly the same things as this expression:
If( x < 12, True, False )
If() is only really useful when you want to return non-boolean data, like so:
If( x < 12, x, 100-x )
In this case, the expression will return either x, or 100-x if x is larger than or equal to 12:
x result
1 1
2 2
10 10
11 11
12 88
13 87
14 86
18 82
70 30
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 7:22am on August 10, 2011
erencing it back into our main .gh file works normally (with full functionality) as long as all the files are on my local hard drive (e.g. "C:"). But as soon as I try to reference a .ghcluster or even open one saved on an external drive (our company's network drive) Rhino and Grasshopper instantly freeze und crash. Every time. No matter the file size.
We have already checked, if maybe whitespaces or dots in the file's path could have caused the crashes. But even eliminating them by renaming the folders doesn't fix the problem.
So obviously GH's clusters does not support referencing files from external network locations. Does anyone have an idea why? Were stuck here, because we want to severely increase the complexity of our project's main gh. file and enable more team members to contribute to the main file via external referenced cluster files.
Thanks for your help.
BB…
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
…