problem later) to fit more shapes that are otherwise won't fit in.
On the example below horizontal rectangle couldn't fit in but its rotated analog could and thus was placed in.
Later, when placed shapes are used to generate frames, because of this rotation, the position of the starting points changes and because of the approach I use to generate the frames some angle values are attached to the wrong corners, this brakes the frame shape and looks like this (on the left the frame of sick shape and on the right the frame of the healthy shape):
Again, this happens because the angle values are assigned to the specific corners (points) and previously rotated shapes get these all messed up:
Easy fix, don't rotate the shapes, problem is, I've already baked a good number of them for later use. I'd like to avoid regeneration because it takes a lot of time and without rotation I constrict the algorithm even more.
Better fix, use a different approach, this is where I'd like to hear suggestions and kicks in a right direction. Please take a look at my definition. It works but I have a feeling like giving an amputee a job of sweeping the floor.
…
nowledge, tools, materials and machines. The Clusters provide a focus for workshop participants working together within a common framework.
Clusters provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, processes and techniques and act as a catalyst for design resolution. The Workshop is made up of ten Clusters that respond in diverse ways to the sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities. The Call for Clusters is now open to proposals which respond in innovative ways to this year's challenge.
Deadline: September 19 2011
More information can be found here:
http://smartgeometry.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=129&Itemid=146
sg2012 takes place from 19-24 March 2012 at EMPAC (http://empac.rpi.edu/) and is hosted by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, upstate New York USA. The Workshop and Conference will be a gathering of the global community of innovators and pioneers in the fields of architecture, design and engineering.
The event will be in two parts: a four day Workshop 19-22 March, and a public conference beginning with Talkshop 23 March, followed by a Symposium 24 March. The event follows the format of the highly successful preceding events sg2010 Barcelona and sg2011 Copenhagen.
sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities
Simulation, Energy, Environment
Imagine the design space of architecture was no longer at the scale of rooms, walls and atria, but that of cells, grains and vapour droplets. Rather than the flow of people, services, or construction schedules, the focus becomes the flow of light, vapour, molecular vibrations and growth schedules: design from the inside out.
The sg2012 challenge, Material Intensities, is intended to dissolve our notion of the built environment as inert constructions enclosing physically sealed spaces. Spaces and boundaries are abundant with vibration, fluctuating intensities, shifting gradients and flows. The materials that define them are in a continual state of becoming: a dance of energy and information.Material potential is defined by multiple properties: acoustical, chemical, electrical, environmental, magnetic, manufacturing, mechanical, optical, radiological, sensorial, and thermal. The challenge for sg2012 Material Intensities is to consider material economy when creating environments, micro-climates and contexts congenial for social interaction, activities and organisation. This challenge calls for design innovation and dialogue between disciplines and responsibilities.sg2010 Working Prototypes strove to emancipate digital design from the hard drive by moving from the virtual to the actual in wrestling with the tangible world of physical fabrication. sg2011 Building the Invisible focused on informing digital design with real world data. sg2012 Material Intensities strives to energise our digital prototypes and infuse them with material behaviour. They have the potential to become rich simulations informed by the material dynamics, chemical composition, energy flows, force fields and environmental conditions that feed back into the design process.
More information can be found at http://www.smartgeometry.org…
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
…
connected hyperspace where architecture can be fluid, flexible and vivid, yet the aspect of materiality requires more attention.
Action-designed structures begin to move beyond the utopian proposals of the 20th century’s manifestos and hold a place in the world of realized designs. The AA Athens Visiting School aims to bring users closer to the built environment while revisiting habits of designing, building and experiencing space through materiality. Understanding materiality and form as a ‘unified whole’, the programme integrates manufacturing techniques through the experimentation fabrication of prototypes at a 1:1 scale.
Prominent Features of the workshop/ skills developed
Participants become part of an active learning environment where the large tutor to student ratio allows for personalized tutorials and debates.
The toolset of the Athens VS includes but is not limited to Processing and Grasshopper for Rhinoceros, as well as design analysis software.
Participants gain hands-on experience on digital fabrication.
Design seminars and a series of lectures support the key objectives of the programme, disseminating fundamental computational techniques, relevant critical thinking, theoretical understanding and professional awareness.
Applications
1) You can make an application by completing the online application found under ‘Links and Downloads’ on the AA Visiting School page. If you are not able to make an online application, email visitingschool@aaschool.ac.uk for instructions to pay by bank transfer. 2) Once you complete the online application and make a full payment, you are registered to the programme. A CV or a portfolio is NOT required.
The deadline for applications is 28 June.
Location AKTO College – Athens Campus 11Α Evelpidon Street (Pedion Areos) Athens, 113 62, Greece
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £695 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting membership fee. Fees do not include flights or accommodation, but accommodation options can be advised.
Eligibility The workshop is open to current Undergrad and Graduate architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Adobe Creative Suite, Rhino 5.
For more information, please visit:
http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/VISITING/athens
http://ai.aaschool.ac.uk/athens/
For inquiries, please contact:
alexandros.kallegias@aaschool.ac.uk…
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
…
uired information, a poor representation of data evolve misreading messages and by turn ambiguous responses especially with complex data. Inforgraphics are graphic visual representations of information, data or knowledge intended to present complex information quickly and clearly. In the nowadays flow of complex information, Infographics is the key for optimized visual communication. The use of infographics is an important step towards developing a pedagogical approach that draws on visuals where 90% of Information is transmitted to the brain so it is crucial to tickle the optic nerves to get people excited about data. The workshop investigates how computational tools can aid in designing and controlling complex information to be easily understood in addition to improve cognition by utilizing graphics to enhance the human visual system’s ability to see patterns and trends and much more likely to be remembered in today’s fast – paced environment. This workshop investigates multiple computational tools and techniques of developing coefficient visualization of data types including; network, statistical and hierarchal data. The workshop objective is to reconsider visual representation a promising design tool for architects, artists and designers. /// Application To apply, please follow this link to fill the application form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1HOv6c1_LzhHNJU5n_FLvuhC-Yg75HDfbEcq6TN6mulI/viewform /// Fees 1200 EGP for students / 1500 EGP for graduates and young professionals more info on the workshop webpage: http://www.encodestudio.net/#!infographics/cqvl
POSTS
…
ike using something like the Z vector, but technically you can use any vector you want. This vector will actually determine the static rotatation of all the planes, so you can control that here if you like. One important thing that I've noticed is that the closer the vector is to the plane of the curve or if its too similar to one of the tangent vectors, the more likely you'll have "flipping"
2) Take the cross product between the tangent and the static vector. This will be your first perpendicular vector, which you can use for the X component of the plane.
3) Take the cross product between the tangent and the result of the previous cross product. Use this result as the Y component of the plane. All three components (X, Y, and Z (which is the tangent vector)) are all perpendicular to each other now.
After you've done that you should have planes that decrease twisting. If your curve is not planar, then there will always be some twisting in the frames, but it will be minimal enough to use them effectively.
There also may be "flipping" within the frames, which means one (or both) of two things. First, you could have planes that have reversed their vectors, so the X vector is properly oriented, but pointing down when it should be pointing up. Second, the X and Y vectors could have potentially swapped, so that Y "should" be X and X "should" be Y. In order to check these things, you'll need to do a few tests. The first one is find out whether the vector (X or Y) of the plane your testing is pointing in the opposite direction of previous vector. The second test is to find out whether the vector (X or Y) of the plane your testing is perpendicular to the previous vector. In both cases, an angle test between the two vectors will be able to tell you what you need to know, but you will likely NEVER get exactly 180 for an opposite test or 90 for a perpendicular test. That means that you have to choose a range with which to determine that a given vector is opposite or perpendicular.
You should start testing the X vector to see if anything is wrong. If you find that the X vector is fine, then just move on because Rhino will only allow you to create right handed planes, and the Z vector (the tangent) will always be the same.
I don't believe that there's a native function within the old dotNET SDK for calculating angles, so use the example at the link below. It basically takes the arcCosine of the Dot Product of the two vectors your testing to return the angle in Radians. I'm not sure if this function is included in RhinoCommon or not....
http://wiki.mcneel.com/developer/sdksamples/anglebetweenvectors…
ed when membrane cones are invited to the party (then mesh (via Starling is the best way) the brep and send data to Kangaroo : the easiest thing to do). But patch doesn't trim the inner Loops and ... well initially I thought to find this in SDK and do the job:
Well... I confess that I can't get the gist of the Brep.Trim (as explained in SDK).
Thus go to plan B: having already the closed breps (the "cones") as cutters ... attempt a Boolean difference
but this does that (this looks to me a bit paranoid, but some reason must exist):
What I want is this:
the code that mess things is (open the script inside definition attached):
BTW: where in SDK is that DeBrep thing?
BTW: Delaunay GH syntax is still cryptic to me (but this is not an issue anymore)
I would greatly appreciate any help on that final step (to greatness).
The full working definition soon (v5: with 90% of components replaced by C# stuff).
best, Peter
…