ty to work in a new and exciting space, where design, art, technology and fashion meet.
If you guys are looking for a full- or part-time job, or know an expert who is - we're happy to with meet him/her. We're located in the Lower East Side, New York.
What the person will be doing:
- Provide technical vision for product and infrastructure features
- Work with Marketing/Product Management to enhance the user experience
- Develop (with our team) our e-commerce customization platform
- Manage our real time 3D modeling platform
- Mentor 3D modelers and developers, define and document development methods, and share best practices
- Review and recommend improvements to product architecture
What we require:
- BA/BS/ BARCH degree OR CS/EE/Engineering degree preferred
- EXTENSIVE 3d modeling, rhino and grasshopper experience
- Experience building online computer games
- Experience creating natural and fractal patterns and forms in 3d
- UV Texture Mapping bit mapping (texture mapping)
- Experience managing a development team in projects with tight SCHEDULES
- Architecture, programing, scripting, Media or Fashion industry experience preferred
- Experience implementing web interfaces using XHTML, CSS, Javascript, and AJAX
- Experience in recommendation engines and algorithms
- Interest in working in an early stage fast-paced environment…
try now to integrate Geco in an interdisciplinary architectural engineering studio: hoping we can show you some nice applications of your tool, I'll keep you update and sending now details by e-mail. Here the file (very welcome to be shared). It most probably contais trivial errors by me, thanks for helping and giving some tip! Gr. Michela
FILE:
Ok, right, I see the outputs update correctly. Origin of problems must be in some different mistake I do:
- Incident radiation: I am not sure I understand what is going on: why I get so many 'not a number' ? (The Galapagos report is full of NaNs).
Bio-Diversity: 0.887 Genome[0], Fitness=NaN, Genes [89% · 44%] { Record: Too many fitness values supplied } ...
Genome[7], Fitness=NaN, Genes [74%] { Record: No fitness value was supplied } ....
Genome[9], Fitness=NaN, Genes [37% · 11%] { Record: Genome was mutated to avoid collision Record: Too many fitness values supplied }
- Daylight calculations: the geometry accumulates withouth deleting the previous models. As a consequance, results almost do not change after few varations (so, outputs get updated but do not vary). In current daylight definition: the first object being imported is the one where the grid has to fit; its setting makes it cancelling all the other objects during import. All the others, do not delete anything when imported. When running loops (manual or GA) that vary parameters, the entire geometry do not get cancelled - so I guess the loop does not pass back by the cancelling step, but imports only the geometry which has been varied by the parameters using the setting of that import component only? I will then try again by changing the order of the operations, but if you have specfic tips, let me know.
THANKS!
…
bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Matrix transforms and persistent constraints: I don't think this is true. The parts can have mates to other parts that preserve geometric relationships like 'coincident' , 'aligned' etc. These are essentially bi-directional. GH's algorithmic approach does not do relationships in the same / flexible way. In GH, the 'relationship' has to be part of the generation method that dependent on the creation sequence. I.e. draw line 2 perpendicularly from the end of point of line 1. If you are thinking about parts or assemblies sharing, or referencing parameters as part of the regen process, this is also possible. iLogic does this, and adds scripting. So does Catia. Inventor/iLogic can also access Excel and have all the parameter processing done centrally, if required.
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.
I wouldn't be too hasty here. Yes, you are right about compartmentalisation. I think this needs to happen with GH, in order to deal with scalability/everyday interoperability requirements. Confining projects to one script is not sustainable. MCAD apps have been doing this for ages with 'Relational Modeling'.The Adaptive Components placement example illustrates that it is beneficial to be able to script some 'hints' that can be used on placement of the component. Say, if your component requires points as inputs, then its should be able to find the nearest points to the cursor as it moves around. I think Aish's D# / DesignScript demo'd this kind of behaviour a few years ago. Similarly, Modo Toolpipe reminds me how a lot of UI based transactions can be captured as scripts (macro recorder etc). Allowing this input to be mixed in and/or extended by GH I think will yield a lot of 'modeling efficiency' around the edges. This is a (mis)using GH as an user-programmable 'jig' for placing/manipulating 'dumb' elements in Rhino. It may even give the 'dumb elements' a bit more 'intelligence' by leaving behind embedded attributes, like links to particular construction planes etc.Even if we confine ourselves to scripting. GH is a visual or graphic programming interface. A lot of 'insert and connect' tasks can be done more easily using graphic methods. If we need to select certain vertices on a mesh as inputs for, say, a facade panel, its going to be quicker to do this 'graphically' (like the AC example), then ferreting out the relevant indices in the data tree et al. The 'facade panel' script would then have some coding to filter/prompt the user as to what inputs were acceptable, and so on.
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.
Not sure what you mean here. If the i-parts are built up using sketches /profiles or other more rudimentary features (like Revits' profile/face etc family templates) then reuse should be fairly straight forward. I suppose you could make it like GH scripting, if you cut and paste or include script snippets that generate the desired Inventor features.
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.
I don't think this is true. Look at the automotive body design apps, which are mostly Catia based. All of the body parts are pretty much 'generative' and generated from splines, in a procedural way, using very similar approaches to GH. Or sheet metal design. It's not always about configuration of off-the-shelf items like bolts. And, the constraints manager is available to arbitrate which bit of script fires first, and your mundane workaday associative dimensions etc can update without getting run over by the DAG(s) :-)
…
es has guided me in a - what I once thought - specific path within architecture, but recent discoveries (like the Grasshopper-community etc.) have learned me that the field of digital and parametric architecture is so-to-speak alive and kicking. This is also the main subject I would like to write my thesis about. It is however mainly the subject and defining its boundaries – what do I really want to explore and research? – which is the most difficult factor at this time.
A concrete idea is non-existant, and my current visions will probably be redirected when I have a first meeting with the promotors in February. Moreover there is the knowledge that it is impossible to make a thesis at the institute in Antwerp on no matter what subject in the world of digital architecture. Understandably too, it’s a small world and does not always result in realised projects, but in impressive imagery. At this moment however, I am thinking of two possible research fields to focus on.
In a first option the focus might lie on how digital design tools can be used to bring a certain aspect of interactivity to building facades. Such interactivity can occur both in the design phase and throughout the use of the building. The first scenario, in which the interactivity occurs when designing, I would focus on how the designer can shape a building’s outer perspective in function of environmental parameters: obstacles, elements that block sunlight from entering the building, visually important landmarks, etc. It should be noted however that focus will mostly lie on the design element, and less on the energy-efficiency and sustainability. Tools that will be researched would include Grasshopper, Rhino Scripting, Processing and ParaCloud.
A second possible approach could be categorized under both Swarm Intelligence and Generative Design and might study how the aforementioned digital techniques might be implemented in the new urbanism. We notably see more (innovative) interventions in which the design and planning is heavily influenced by movement patterns and morphogenetic parameters and functions. Based on the outcome of these scripted techniques, designers tend to work towards a proposal which answers a certain urbanistic issue.
All additional insights, guidelines, tips, comments are more than welcome in order to help me define the scope of my thesis subject. I must admit I am pretty new to this digital design world (it is not actively promoted at my home university, but it is promoted at the university where I am studying for one year now) and thus have limited experience at the time of writing.
Please also feel free to check out the blog post concerning this topic, which is a little more elaborate: http://nielswouters.be/thesis-digital-design-english/
Thanks for all your help!
…
y in English. ○Presenter
Robert (Bob) McNeel (McNeel & Associates founder) Robert (Bob) McNeel is the founder and president of Robert McNeel & Associates (RMA). Founded in 1978, RMA originally focused on developing accounting software for accounting, architecture, engineering, and other personal services firms. Within a few years, RMA expanded its services to include selling and supporting microprocessor-based engineering and design software including AutoCAD. By 1985, the main focus of the business had shifted to AutoCAD sales, service, training, and software development. Bob McNeel grew up in the mountains of southern Washington State on a subsistence dairy farm. To pay for college, he worked in construction as a carpenter, welder, and cement finisher. Bob has a BA in Accounting from Washington State University. Prior to founding McNeel & Associates, he was a practicing Certified Public Accountant and the comptroller for a large construction company in Spokane. Andrés González (Rhino Fablab director) Andrés is a software trainer and developer since the 1980s. He has developed applications for diverse design markets as well as training materials for different CAD and Design software including the community of training materialswww.Rhino3D.TV Andrés has been working with the Rhino Team since the very early stages. He is now the head of the McNeel Southeast US & Latin American Division. He is the worldwide director of the digital fabrication community called RhinoFabLabwww.RhinoFabLab.com as well as the Generative Jewelry & Fashion Design community GJD3D www.GJD3d.com and Generative Furniture Design community GFD3D www.GFD3d.com 1981 -1985 University of North Carolina at Charlotte N.C. - EE.UU. B.S., Bachelor of Science in Engineering
…
Added by Yusuke Oono at 9:28pm on October 16, 2013
This blog post is a rough approximation of the lecture I gave at the AAG10 conference in Vienna on September 21st 2010. Naturally it will be quite a different experience as the medium is quite…
Added by David Rutten at 3:27pm on September 24, 2010
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…
ting at multiple geometries in the same location. I simply sorted the list of values and used the Delete Consecutive component. This potentially rearranges the order of values but I don't think that matters in your case. I also threw in an Int component which actually seems to make a difference (try sidestepping it and you will see!).
2-I flattened the output of the mesh component before sending it to union. This ensures that the original mesh is booleaned once with all the components rather than individually with each of the 86 components.
Is this what the result should look like?
One suggestion for future postings: when referencing geometry in rhino, it often helps if you attach your rhino file as well so people don't have to guess where you are starting from.
If you have further questions, just ask ;-)
cbass…