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
…
s levels of detail by subdividing a 6 sided cube mesh and projecting its vertices according to a referenced height map. This is one of the standard conventions for building full sizes planets. At the lowest level (0) the mesh planet is made of 6 pieces(each 32x32 resolution). The next level down (1) is made of 24 pieces... 6 divided by 4 = 24. Level (2) is 96 quads etc etc. The script will generate each quad at its sub-division level and compare edge vertices to neighboring quads. It will then make sure any shared vertices are in fact at the same projected vector. This ensures a planet quad with edge vertices that match.
The problems comes in texturing each quad.
If I build the quad as a nurb surface from points I can place the texture easily because each surface UV maps squarely to my texture map (which is also square).
If I build the quad as a mesh I cannot just apply the square texture to the mesh UVs. This is because when you unwrap the UVs from a mesh they will not unwrap like a nurb surface's UVs. Therefore to get the correct mapping I would have to manipulate each UV back to an evenly aligned array (which is 1024 points in a 32x32 resolution UV). Maya and blender have 'relax uv' and 'align UV' functions but they don't do the trick and manual corrections are out of the question. So why not skip the mesh method and use the nurb method?
I did this and there is a trade off. The nurb will accept the material texture I want with no other work on my end but when I export the object as an .obj rhino creates its own mesh to describe the nurb(with various unsatisfactory setting options). This works great up to a point because at some level the interpreted mesh will have vertices that do no match at the edges, ie .. creating visible seams in the mesh. The picture below is the nearly seamless planet at LOD(1) made of 24 quads, each with 32x32 vertice resolution and a 512x512 jpg texture running in Unity3d 5. It works but at close level there are seams. This will be resolved simply by having the next LOD(x) instantiate before getting close enough to see the seam but at core nerd level I want the seamless mesh.
So, I can make the seamless mesh but I can not realistically texture map it. I can also make the nurb surface from points and texture it at the expense of the edge vertices matching. I am at the split in the road but I want to have my cake and eat it too. Thoughts, comments, trolls...?
Thanks for reading =)
Footnote: For you pros I am not using seamless noise across the map I am using grasshopper to sew up my otherwise non perfect edges.
Other programs in the pipeline:
-WorldMachine 2
-Wilbur
-Photoshop
-Unity3d…
ive collaborative environment.
TYPE : Course module and Workshop
The event is open for anybody interested from all the fields of design, including: architecture, interior design, furniture design, product design, fashion design, scenography, and engineering.
1. COURSE MODULE (20-23 April 2014) - optional
+ type: 3 days intensive course regarding basic knowledge in parametric design (LEVEL 1)
+ software: Rhinoceros & Grasshopper
+ plugins: Kangaroo, Weaver Bird, Lunch box, Ghowl, Geco
+ achievements:
- acquainting to the components & the concept of Generative Design
- understanding the strategies in Algorithmic Design
- how to easily insert simple mathematical equation into the project to gain more control
- how to utilize proper plugins with respect to their nature of the project
- interacting with different analysis platforms such as Ecotect & remote controller
- solving several exercises with different scales( 2D- 3D ) during each phase of the workshop
2. WORKSHOP (23-27 April 2014)
A 5 day Design-Based Research Workshop exploring new techniques in Digital Architecture/Fabrication, with a specific focus on the use of generative systems and parametric modeling as tools for creative expression.
Our ultimate goal is to increasing the efficiency of utilizing digital tools in parallel with geometric performance of the primitive design agent.
+ + CONCEPT
Fashion and Architecture are both based on basic life necessities – clothing and shelter.
However, they are also forms of self-expression – for both creators and consumers.
Both fashion and architecture affect our emotional being in many ways.
The agenda of this workshop is to investigate on the overlap between these two areas of design, art & fashion.
Fashion and architecture express ideas of personal, social and cultural identity, reflecting the concerns of the user and the ambition of the age. Their relationship is a symbiotic one and throughout history, clothing and buildings have echoed each other in form and appearance. This only seems natural as they not only share the primary function of providing shelter and protection for the body, but also because they both create space and volume out of flat, two-dimensional materials.
While they have much in common, they are also intrinsically different – address the human scale, but the proportions, sizes and shapes differ enormously.
+ + + OBJECTIVES
So far, Architects have been using techniques such as folding, bending etc. to create space, structural roofs or different other structural shapes.
The agenda of this workshop goes further with the investigation of algorithmic thinking through generative tools Integrated in design.
The challenge is creating a bridge that connects these two areas of design, architecture and fashion that perform at two opposite scales.
+ + + + TECHNICAL BRIEF
In the early stages physical models and low-tech strategies will be used, allowing the participants to gain a greater understanding of materials, fabrication and assembly methods as well as simple, yet pragmatic structural solutions.
Later in the workshop these strategies will be digitalized and elaborated using software visualizing tools such as Rhinoceros and the algorithmic plug-in Grasshopper.…
ARRAY with certain spatial order or mechanism under consideration of ecological design. The evaluation and definition of “ARRAY” are open to applicants’ imaginations. While the term “ecological” is subjected to many definitions: social, ecological, sustainable, its re-evaluations are open to students’ interpretations. Entrants are free to choose or make site, real or virtual.
ELIGIBILITY
Open to international students in the fields of architecture and design related disciplines from an accredited four-year or five-year architecture program. Graduates with certificate in 2011 are accepted. Teamed collaboration consisting of no more than 3 students in the above mentioned fields is permitted. Works submitted must be of applicants’ original works. Works done through school studios are accepted, but limited to 2011 term.
ENTRY FEE
Free
DEADLINES
Online Registration deadline: Oct 30th, 2011, 17:00 Taipei Time
(Upon completing registration, applicant will receive a registration number via email.)
Submission deadline: email sent by Nov 3rd, 2011, 17:00 Taipei Time
SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
This is a digital competition and no hardcopies are necessary. Entrants must submit their proposal via email no later than Nov 3rd, 2011 17:00 (Taipei Time) to the following email address:
hojenhwang@mail.ntut.edu.tw
The project submission must contain the following files:
1. Two A1 boards in portrait format (594mm x 841mm), with identification number at the upper right corner. Names and other identifying information are not allowed on front side of the boards. The resolution of the boards must be 300dpi, RGB mode and saved as JPG files.. The files must be named after the registration number followed by the board number. For example: 03956-board1.jpg and 03956-board2.jpg.
2. A DOC file containing the project discription (600 words max). This file must be named after the registration number followed by the word "discription". For example: 03956-discription.doc.
3. A scan of statement form. This file must be named after the registration number followed by the word "statement_scan". For example: 03956-statement_scan.jpg.
4. All the files must be placed in a ZIP folder named after your registration number. For example: 03956.zip. Size of the ZIP folder is suggested to be less than 15mb, while size more than 25mb will not be accepted
AWARDS
(1) Gold Prize winner will be awarded TWD 60,000 and a trophy.
(2) Silver Prize winner will be awarded TWD 30,000 and a trophy
(3) Bronze Prize winner will be awarded TWD 15,000 and a trophy
(4) Honorable Mention winners will be awarded TWD 5,000 and a merit certificate
Winners will be announced and notified by mid of Nov, 2011.
JURY
Two stages of open jury. Details to be announced
PUBLIC EXHIBITION
Nov 13, 2011~ Nov 18, 2011 at NTUT, Taipei
…
Added by Yu-Min Su at 2:03am on September 23, 2011
he Cordyceps. Maybe some of you find this helpful/useful.
So basically, the Cordyceps is a physical module with 4 knobs and 1 slider. The knobs give an output between 1 and 1000, while the physical slider outputs 0-359. And of course, for this physical module I wrote a plugin to communicate with it. The knobs are intended to be the variables that modifies the design, while the physical slider is intended to be connected to the camera component.
Here I will put up "the recipe" for all to make their own module. You will be able to download the plugin as well.
Please send me a message if you want the 3D-files for the knobs, the box and slider knob. They've been made to directly 3D-print.
Plugin:
https://github.com/zakadjeb/Cordyceps/blob/master/Cordyceps/Cordyce...
Code for Arduino IDE:
https://github.com/zakadjeb/Cordyceps/blob/master/Arduino/_Arduino_...
What you need:
1x - Arduino (Leonardo, UNO or whatever)
4x - Potentiometers
1x - Sliding potentiometer
1x - Breadboard
Bundle of jump wires.
1. So, a potentiometer is a variable resistor, which is basically a component that changes the resistance between the voltage and the ground.
If A is supplied with 5V then B must be connected to Ground. The W will give "read" the resistance, and thus should be placed in Analog input (A0-A5) on the Arduino. The slider potentiometer works the same way.
2. Now connect the 4 pots to each their Analog input. The slider is supposed to be in A4. So to make sure:
A0: Knob1
A1: Knob2
A2: Knob3
A3: Knob4
A4: Slider
3. Now it's time to connect the voltage! Using the breadboard, the voltage can be sent through 1 line, the Ground as well. It should be quite easy to connect them.
4. Now, download the Arduino IDE and copy-paste the code I supplied above. In the IDE, you need to let it know which Arduino you're working with, and which port is should send the script.
5. Almost there. Download the plugin. Open the port you're using through the plugin. Set Start to True and the Cordyceps should be within you.
This recipe will be updated!
Let me know if there are any issues.
// Zakaria Djebbara…
he Cordyceps. Maybe some of you find this helpful/useful.
So basically, the Cordyceps is a physical module with 4 knobs and 1 slider. The knobs give an output between 1 and 1000, while the physical slider outputs 0-359. And of course, for this physical module I wrote a plugin to communicate with it. The knobs are intended to be the variables that modifies the design, while the physical slider is intended to be connected to the camera component.
Here I will put up "the recipe" for all to make their own module. You will be able to download the plugin as well.
Please send me a message if you want the 3D-files for the knobs, the box and slider knob. They've been made to directly 3D-print.
Plugin:
https://github.com/zakadjeb/Cordyceps/blob/master/Cordyceps/Cordyce...
Code for Arduino IDE:
https://github.com/zakadjeb/Cordyceps/blob/master/Arduino/_Arduino_...
What you need:
1x - Arduino (Leonardo, UNO or whatever)
4x - Potentiometers
1x - Sliding potentiometer
1x - Breadboard
Bundle of jump wires.
1. So, a potentiometer is a variable resistor, which is basically a component that changes the resistance between the voltage and the ground.
If A is supplied with 5V then B must be connected to Ground. The W will give "read" the resistance, and thus should be placed in Analog input (A0-A5) on the Arduino. The slider potentiometer works the same way.
2. Now connect the 4 pots to each their Analog input. The slider is supposed to be in A4. So to make sure:
A0: Knob1
A1: Knob2
A2: Knob3
A3: Knob4
A4: Slider
3. Now it's time to connect the voltage! Using the breadboard, the voltage can be sent through 1 line, the Ground as well. It should be quite easy to connect them.
4. Now, download the Arduino IDE and copy-paste the code I supplied above. In the IDE, you need to let it know which Arduino you're working with, and which port is should send the script.
5. Almost there. Download the plugin. Open the port you're using through the plugin. Set Start to True and the Cordyceps should be within you.
This recipe will be updated!
Let me know if there are any issues.
// Zakaria Djebbara…
ed file and code below:
Color ColorAt(Mesh mesh, int faceIndex, double t0, double t1, double t2, double t3) { // int rc = -1; var color = Rhino.Display.Color4f.Black;
if( mesh.VertexColors.Count != 0) { // test to see if face exists if( faceIndex >= 0 && faceIndex < mesh.Faces.Count ) { /// Barycentric quad coordinates for the point on the mesh /// face mesh.Faces[FaceIndex].
/// If the face is a triangle /// disregard T[3] (it should be set to 0.0).
/// If the face is /// a quad and is split between vertexes 0 and 2, then T[3] /// will be 0.0 when point is on the triangle defined by vi[0], /// vi[1], vi[2]
/// T[1] will be 0.0 when point is on the /// triangle defined by vi[0], vi[2], vi[3].
/// If the face is a /// quad and is split between vertexes 1 and 3, then T[2] will /// be -1 when point is on the triangle defined by vi[0], /// vi[1], vi[3]
/// and m_t[0] will be -1 when point is on the /// triangle defined by vi[1], vi[2], vi[3].
MeshFace face = mesh.Faces[faceIndex];
// Collect data for barycentric evaluation. Color p0, p1, p2;
if(face.IsTriangle) { p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; } else { if( t3 == 0 ) { // point is on subtriangle {0,1,2} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; } else if( t1 == 0 ) { // point is on subtriangle {0,2,3} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.D]; //t0 = t0; t1 = t2; t2 = t3; } else if( t2 == -1 ) { // point is on subtriangle {0,1,3} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.D]; //t0 = t0; //t1 = t1; t2 = t3; } else { // point must be on remaining subtriangle {1,2,3} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.D]; t0 = t1; t1 = t2; t2 = t3; } }
/** double r = t0 * p0.FractionRed() + t1 * p1.FractionRed() + t2 * p2.FractionRed(); double g = t0 * p0.FractionGreen() + t1 * p1.FractionGreen() + t2 * p2.FractionGreen(); double b = t0 * p0.FractionBlue() + t1 * p1.FractionBlue() + t2 * p2.FractionBlue();
ON_Color color; color.SetFractionalRGB(r, g, b);
unsigned int abgr = (unsigned int)color; rc = (int) ABGR_to_ARGB(abgr); **/ var c0 = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(p0); var c1 = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(p1); var c2 = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(p2); float s0 = (float) t0; float s1 = (float) t1; float s2 = (float) t2;
float R = s0 * c0.R + s1 * c1.R + s2 * c2.R; float G = s0 * c0.G + s1 * c1.G + s2 * c2.G; float B = s0 * c0.B + s1 * c1.B + s2 * c2.B; color = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(R, G, B, 1); } } return color.AsSystemColor(); }
…
ort and export from the images below and also from the HELP file of DB in attachments (Page 71: Importing Geometric Data; Page 78-80: Import 3 - D CAD Data). In their HELP file, they mention about "import geometric data".
However, regarding the input of schedules, loads, constructions and etc., DB normally uses "Component " and "Template" (Page 29: Templates And Components; Page 591: Templates; Page 533: Components). "Templates" are databases of typical generic data, including Activity templates, Construction templates, Glazing templates, Facade templates, HVAC templates, Location Templates, and etc. "Component " are databases of individual data items (e.g. a construction type, material, window pane).
Both "Component " and "Template" are allowed to be imported and exported by using "Import / Export library data" command (.ddf format - DB Database File; Page 734: Import Components/Templates, Export Components/Templates). DB also allows us to build up our own libraries of templates and components (Page 731: Library Management; Page 733: Template Library Management).
In order to import both geometric information and other information related to schedules, loads, constructions and etc. from GH to BD, we supposed the following two ways:
1. GH(HB+GB) --> gbXML (both geometric and "Component " and "Template" information) --> DB
This is the way we most prefer. We did see information related to schedules, loads, constructions encoded in the gbXML file generated by GB, but still do not know the reason why DB did not take this information (I also mentioned this in Q6 within the gh file). We assume this might because the gbXML file we create encodes the schedules based on a different template / schema than the one DB expects. We also post this question to the DB forum for help.
(http://www.designbuilder.co.uk/component/option,com_forum/Itemid,25/page,viewtopic/p,13755/#13755)
2. GH(HB+GB) --> gbXML (geometric information only) + .ddf ("Component " and "Template" information only) --> DB
If the first way doesn't work and DB only takes geometric information from the gbXML, then we might think of the other way - generating the .ddf files from GH(HB+GB) to pass the schedule, load and construction information to DB.
I was wondering if it is feasible for HB and GB to have this function? And what is your suggestion to achieve this?
In addition, we notice that DB can export XML files (not gbXML), so we are trying to figure out if DB also accepts / reads the XML file. If so, we might be able to convert the gbXML (with both geometric and schedule information) to XML. What do you think about that?
Thank you again for all your help!
Best,
Ding
DB import
DB export
Template libraries
Component libraries
…
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013