oxes in the most efficient way within boundaries of object and follow the following constraints. The Goal: To fit 125 boxes in the most efficient way inside the total area. Starting Variables: (1) 40% of the Boxes need to be between 60 and 85MSQ. (2) 40% of the boxes need to be between 86 and 110MSQ.
(3) 20% of the boxes need to be between 111 and 125mSQ. The breakdown doesn’t have to be exact to give the script some flexibility. Meaning you can have 41% +39% +20% = 100%.
Constraints:
1. A total MAXIMUM area of approximately 1600M per layer.
2. A maximum of 8 layers for a total of 12,800M per layer. Optimization can make as little or as many as 8 layers vertical to accommodate all boxes. So if script can achieve with 3 levels great. If needed all 8 levels, that's fine too. However, pay attention to next constraint (#3).
3. Approximately 15% of that space on each layer is off limits. (internal area) (blue area in example script) and the shape of the boundary cannot be modified to accommodate box design resulting in jagged lines for the internal area.
4. All generated squares/rectangles must have at least 3m touching an outside border (The Green lines).
5. All boxes must also be touching minimum 1M of border of the blue line.
6. If the boxes generated go outside the green boundary, they must be fillet to maintain the straight lines of the green boundaries.
7. Get as many of the boxes as possible a view towards the dots.
Could any one provide me a method or a way to start, if there are any useful links, please share with me. Thank you!…
Boxes in the most efficient way within boundaries of object and follow the following constraints.
The Goal: To fit 125 boxes in the most efficient way inside the total area. Starting Variables:
(1) 40% of the Boxes need to be between 60 and 85MSQ. (2) 40% of the boxes need to be between 86 and 110MSQ.
(3) 20% of the boxes need to be between 111 and 125mSQ. The breakdown doesn’t have to be exact to give the script some flexibility. Meaning you can have 41% +39% +20% = 100%.
Constraints:
1. A total MAXIMUM area of approximately 1600M per layer.
2. A maximum of 8 layers for a total of 12,800M per layer. Optimization can make as little or as many as 8 layers vertical to accommodate all boxes. So if script can achieve with 3 levels great. If needed all 8 levels, that's fine too. However, pay attention to next constraint (#3).
3. Approximately 15% of that space on each layer is off limits. (internal area) (blue area in example script) and the shape of the boundary cannot be modified to accommodate box design resulting in jagged lines for the internal area.
4. All generated squares/rectangles must have at least 3m touching an outside border (The Green lines).
5. All boxes must also be touching minimum 1M of border of the blue line.
6. If the boxes generated go outside the green boundary, they must be fillet to maintain the straight lines of the green boundaries.
7. Get as many of the boxes as possible a view towards the dots.
Could any one provide me a method or a way to start, if there are any useful links, please share with me. Thank you!
…
re is my problem... I need to arrange Boxes in the most efficient way within boundaries of object and follow the following constraints.
The Goal: To fit 125 boxes in the most efficient way inside the total area. Starting Variables:
(1) 40% of the Boxes need to be between 60 and 85MSQ. (2) 40% of the boxes need to be between 86 and 110MSQ.
(3) 20% of the boxes need to be between 111 and 125mSQ. The breakdown doesn’t have to be exact to give the script some flexibility. Meaning you can have 41% +39% +20% = 100%.
Constraints:
1. A total MAXIMUM area of approximately 1600M per layer.
2. A maximum of 8 layers for a total of 12,800M per layer. Optimization can make as little or as many as 8 layers vertical to accommodate all boxes. So if script can achieve with 3 levels great. If needed all 8 levels, that's fine too. However, pay attention to next constraint (#3).
3. Approximately 15% of that space on each layer is off limits. (internal area) (blue area in example script) and the shape of the boundary cannot be modified to accommodate box design resulting in jagged lines for the internal area.
4. All generated squares/rectangles must have at least 3m touching an outside border (The Green lines).
5. All boxes must also be touching minimum 1M of border of the blue line.
6. If the boxes generated go outside the green boundary, they must be fillet to maintain the straight lines of the green boundaries.
7. Get as many of the boxes as possible a view towards the dots.
Could any one provide me a method or a way to start, if there are any useful links, please share with me. Thank you!
…
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…
H are automated by using them as an ActiveX, the C# script object fails on the simplest tasks. That is, when initiating Rhino and GH externally (as by the following C# code):
Rhino5Application rhino_app = new Rhino5Application();
dynamic grasshopper = newRhino.rhino_app.GetPlugInObject("b45a29b1-4343-4035-989e-044e8580d9cf", "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000") as dynamic;
The following very simple C# script component fails because it cant cast its input:
The c# code at the component is only:
Line 89 is simply casting of the input. Clearly, this makes the usage of C# component, under automation, impossible which is a major loss.
As said, when initiating Rhino and GH manually , all works well as in the following:
Any ideas why it misbehaves under automation (as an Active X ) ?
I added the gh file of this example.…
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
…
he concept, moving on to decision making and continuing with digital and generative design tools TO GET THE BEST SOLUTION for each problem.
WHY? The world is complex and ever-changing and we need to be able to handle the volume of information we receive and, of course, to find and choose the best solution. Therefore, we direct our ATTENTION TO THE CAUSE, and not only on the effects/solutions.
We will learn from NATURE, the only “company” that has not gone bankrupt in over 4000M years, and it’s GENERATIVE SOLUTIONS.
> OBJECTIVES <
The participants will work in multidisciplinary groups (ex. architect + designer + business manager + constructor + communication specialist etc.) applying knowledge management tools, different approaches and nature-based optimization methods.
Listed objectives:
1. Improving the generative way of TURNING AN IDEA INTO A PROJECT through problem-solving thinking
2. Discovering nature’s ways of shaping evolutionary solutions
3. Getting out from our comfort zone and working together with other professionals in groups in order to achieve better solutions: Multidisciplinary Design Optimization
4. Learning to use technology to manage information in the decision making process
& surviving the whole week
> ATTENDANCE & COSTS <
> Early bird – until 17th March 2013
Lecture – 15 euro (includes presentations, food& drinks)
Workshop – 100 euro (includes lecture, food& drinks)
> Late bird – until 6th April 2013
Lecture – 25 euro (includes presentations, food& drinks)
Workshop – 120 euro (includes lecture, food& drinks)
…