g from a list of 12 items I would find all the combinations taking just 4 at time.
I'd use a Stream gate that takes the indexes of the items and pass them to a list item in order to select just the items of the combination. Doing so I can choose a single combination of index at time to pass to the list item.
In this moment all the data come out from the first gate, all the others are empty.
If I pass these index to the list item it gives me an error (probably because of the data structure).
*long version*
I start from a list of 12 segments, all of them with the starting point in common and the ending point distributed regularly in the space. It's a quite simple starting point.
What I'm trying to achieve is to find all the possible spatial configurations made of 2, 3, 4 segments. I started with 2 segments so I've 12^2=144 possible configurations but just 4 different configurations that can intuitivelly be recognized (60°, 90°, 120°, 180°).
Doing the same with 3 segments generates 12^3=1728 configurations and I don't know how many different ones. With 4 segments I've got 12^4=20736 possible configurations.
As you can imagine many configurations are identical but just with a different orientation so at the end I'll have to parse geometrically the output to delete duplicates (I'll address this later on).
Please could you help me to figure out how to mix these segments in different configurations?
Thank you in advance.…
per bake commands to bake the connected geometry with the corresponding materials.
mxDiff is a simple diffuse material. Only reflectance color for 0° and 90° are exposed.
mxEmit is a basic emitter material. You can set light color, power and efficiacy of the emitter.
mxBasic is the most complex material for now. You can set all the properties of a single layer material including. Use this for transparent materials.
mList is your way if you don't want to create your own materials. This component returns a list of all the materials on the Maxwell scene manager. Make sure this is evaluated after you add your own materials if you want to see them in the list.…
diseño, construcción y entendimiento de nuestro entorno.
BIM está poniendo a disposición de los diseñadores y gestores auténticas bases de datos que pueden generarse, conectarse y editarse de forma paramétrica, proporcionando una sólida capa de realidad a los ejercicios de diseño generativo y computación que son objeto de estudio en Algomad, el seminario que busca popularizar la programación y la parametrización en el diseño y en la experiencia de nuestro entorno construido.
Tras un paréntesis en 2015, Algomad vuelve con el objetivo de demostrar cómo una visión computacional del BIM es una oportunidad para mejorar la forma de trabajar de ingenieros, arquitectos, constructoras y operadores de edificios e infraestructuras, tendiendo un puente entre las técnicas de diseño digital más avanzadas y la realidad de la construcción.
Algomad 2016 tendrá lugar en el centro de Madrid, en IE School of Architecture and Design, IE University, los días 3, 4 y 5 de Noviembre de 2016 y comprenderá 4 talleres así como ponencias a cargo de expertos de primer nivel.
Estructura de Algomad 2016
Algomad 2016 se estructura en torno a tres áreas temáticas principales:
BIM, como la metodología total específica para el sector de la construcción.
Computación, englobando las aplicaciones de programación y parametrización al diseño de edificios e infraestructuras.
Realidad, como marco de trabajo, buscando siempre resolver problemas reales a través de los dos puntos anteriores.
Público objetivo
Arquitectos, arquitectos técnicos, ingenieros y en general académicos, estudiantes de últimos cursos y profesionales del mundo inmobiliario y de la construcción que compartan un interés por la digitalización de nuestro sector. Se espera un nivel mínimo en el uso de herramientas BIM y de parametrización. Algomad proporcionará formación adicional y gratuita en las herramientas básicas a emplear en los talleres para asegurar un correcto desempeño.…
are invisible in the picture.
So what you see it's a common band that has lost all those characteristics of the original in order to protect the process.
We also did an "invisible setting" prototype which has built in Flexibility.
If you are in the jewelry industry you would know what I mean and it is close to a miracle.
It's a shame I can not share details and this is why I am planning my next major work on something 10 times more complex then this, at least.
It's will be for my own business and for the jewelry industry as well.
I hate to tease people and then not to be able to produce anything more than an image.
But I thought it would be better than nothing, at least for jeweler designers, so they can see that there are more and more users and that complexity it is not something to shy away from, and it's worth the time spent because the returns on production are far larger than for special orders and this is why GH is useful.
We can design a piece of jewelry usually in less then 1 hour, hence GH is not really worth the time.
But for production with so many variables (Finger sizes controlling most of the outcome together with stone sizes etc.) then GH it's a MUST!
I really appreciate everyone's comments and suspicions and I understand why.
99% of the people out there do not really understand the complexity of jewelry at the industrial level. It' s not just form but the post-production that's the killer.
This industry it's still an hybrid of technology and art with, and due to the lack of the old school pros, unfortunately, we face very lousy and unpredictable execution in the post production (after the casting process). This leaves you with a design process and intention that requires a lot of control over every possible variant of the object.
One wrong design aspect it's multiplied thousands of times at the benches (for every single piece) = bad profits!
It sound more serious that it is but very few companies are willing to do so (delivering good product vs low quality and this also happens because the consumer is not longer aware of the difference. So, who does keep quality, it's only because of integrity, third party QA or just pride).
This is way GH is invaluable. This is why that Def looks like out of proportion for that (Visual) simple band.
It is because there are dozens and dozens of variable effecting everything else. In fact it is not even complete as it is in order to cover everything but the most critical ones.
Sorry for the long replays. I am an instructor and a professional jeweler by trade since I was very young and I love to teach, so I overflow with explanations... and Components :)).
Next time it will be "in the open" as they say...…
uments:
1. You are targeting CATIA don't you? (not exactly tomorrow but ... soon) and/or SolidWorks (hello C# haven't we met before?).
2. You MUST deal with nested block instances instead of what you are trying to do right now (I'm talking about the real MERO things not abstract Lines and points). This is not doable with GH components I'm afraid (but it's rather easy with code).
3. You MUST deal with RDBMS in order to keep track with what's going on in your company per project per case per designer (who sells that bolt? what's his cat name? is he a reliable supplier? what I'm doing in life? ... that sort of "queries"). At this point: CATIA is 1% CAD things and 99% PLM stuff (Product Life cycle Management). We do want that since it's 21st century running don't we?.
I hear you: but these are 3 arguments ... indeed but ... hey who's counting? he he.
Method:
A. This def attached has a very simple C# that gets mesh Pts and makes a nice U/V style collection of points (DataTree in plain English).
B. Then we go to that umbrella sticks thingy: we can calculate anything (already the thing does "some") plus your collections of divided points (with the right way, he he) VS a given node: you said (Skype) that you want to calculate angles with these (from 2 to 6) in mind: obvious since you are doing real-life MERO things.
C. Then we could calculate the appropriate Planes for PlaneToPlane transformations: get a nested instance definition (the red things that you've showed to me yesterday) placed at 0,0,0 (Plane.WorldXY) and put in in every Plane collection related with every node (clash defection is an obvious must).
Case resolved, closed: what about that Vodka?
More in Skype
…
merely automates finding clear intersections between pairs of objects and then splits the objects along those intersection *curves*, deletes the trims, then joins the remains, and cycles on. But within the confusing Rhino Settings tolerance value, wherever surfaces actually just sort of come closely together, there *is* *no* clear intersection curve. So it bugs out and stops working EVERY time you try more than a dozen or two spheres.
Some software can do this by switching to volumetric pixels (voxels). $9K-$30K Geomagic Freeform is an example of this. It also fails sometimes, often due to memory issues, as you can imagine since it needs to fill all inner space of each sphere definition with 3D pixels.
Materialize Magics for $16K can often handle such Booleans well. It will take a seeming lifetime to figure out such often pirate software kludges though.
One thing you can try though is to simply drape a mesh or NURBS plane onto the top of your spheres.
There's a well known *reason* your Booleans are failing. Nobody here has yet even hinted at it:
The main reason is that Rhino/Grasshopper developers don't care about the human element. The math exists to make this work very fast, every time. It just has to join things *right*, incorporating human knowledge of kissing surfaces, instead of acting stupidly, like some pocket calculator. But that would involve hacks that make 99% of complex Booleans work instead of 10%, and we can't have that since it will be SLOWER for the other 1% that just happen to have no nearly kissing or really kissing surfaces.
You could also use the new Cocoon plugin to do a surface *around* your structures, with a given radius of extension beyond the spheres, then offset that surface back the same radius. That is 100% robust, but won't offer quite as sharp of intersections, more rounded, like most everybody wants anyway.
You can *test* Boolean failures, by running a Grasshopper intersection command, to see the intersection curves, and zoom in to see how badly many of them are, all knotted, or twisted, or even with gaps, often with gaps.
It's a math problem nobody at McNeel wants to solve, sorry.
Just write a check for $25K and spend six months taking notes, like I did, and you can merge your simple spheres finally.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:33pm on October 20, 2015
radiance parameters to get rid of blotching. To add another level of complexity to my problem, I am running simulations with a translucent material with the following properties: void trans testTrans
0
0
7 0.478 0.478 0.478 0.000 0.010 0.178 0.635
I have had no issues with the renderings when I use clear glazing, as seen on this image:
However the blotching-issue becomes very noticeable when I introduce translucent glazing into the scene:
For the two above cases I used the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 2
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.5
_aa_ is set to 0.2
_ad_ is set to 2048
_st_ is set to 0.5
yScale is set to 2
_ps_ is set to 4
_ar_ is set to 64
_as_ is set to 2048
_ds_ is set to 0.25
_pt_ is set to 0.1
_dr_ is set to 1
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 256
_dt_ is set to 0.25
_lr_ is set to 6
_dj_ is set to 0.5
_lw_ is set to 0.01
I ran another test with increased Radiance parameters and got the following output:
with the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 6
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.75
_aa_ is set to 0.1
_ad_ is set to 4096
_st_ is set to 0.15
yScale is set to 6
_ps_ is set to 2
_ar_ is set to 128
_as_ is set to 4096
_ds_ is set to 0.05
_pt_ is set to 0.05
_dr_ is set to 3
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 512
_dt_ is set to 0.15
_lr_ is set to 8
_dj_ is set to 0.7
_lw_ is set to 0.005
Although the second blotching case is much better than the first, it is still very bad for hours when the sun is lower in the sky. The above images are rendered for a clear sky at 18:00 in Germany in a West-facing room.
Sorry for the long post! Can someone help? Kind regards, Örn
…
the space that you are designing and your design intent. Just think about an atrium vs a museum. And now think of the atrium in two different climate zones. As a [lighting] designer you make the decision on how do you want the space to be, how the climate is and then try to take advantage of skylight and/or direct sunlight to achieve your design goals.
2. Yes. There is a watchTheSky component next to sky types which let you visualize the sky. There is also an example file that you can check.
3. This one again depends on your model. For your model I would suggest a minimum number of 4 for your final analysis. -ab is only one of the parameters. Check this slides by John Mardaljevic if you want to have a better understanding of radiance parameters and their effect on the results.
I also added the link to "Tutorial on the Use of Daysim Simulations for Sustainable Design" by Christoph Reinhart to teaching materials. I encourage you to at least read chapters 1 and 2 of the tutorial. Check pages 25 and 27 have two examples about selecting the parameters.
Great questions. Keep them coming.
Mostapha…
the space that you are designing and your design intent. Just think about an atrium vs a museum. And now think of the atrium in two different climate zones. As a [lighting] designer you make the decision on how do you want the space to be, how the climate is and then try to take advantage of skylight and/or direct sunlight to achieve your design goals.
2. Yes. There is a watchTheSky component next to sky types which let you visualize the sky. There is also an example file that you can check.
3. This one again depends on your model. For your model I would suggest a minimum number of 4 for your final analysis. -ab is only one of the parameters. Check this slides by John Mardaljevic if you want to have a better understanding of radiance parameters and their effect on the results.
I also added the link to "Tutorial on the Use of Daysim Simulations for Sustainable Design" by Christoph Reinhart to teaching materials. I encourage you to at least read chapters 1 and 2 of the tutorial. Check pages 25 and 27 have two examples about selecting the parameters.
Great questions. Keep them coming.
Mostapha…
evel in which each final branch contains a list of one number from each list in all its variations with the other two lists.
12
AB
xy
Becomes eight possible combinations:
1Ax
1Ay
1Bx
1By
2Ax
2Ay
2Bx
2By
Either I could immediately break into 8 branches or branch twice from 2 items to 4 items then from those 4 items to 8 final items. I keep trying grafting with all manner of tree components and *never* obtain a simple dual branching fractal tree structure. I barely even need a tree actually, but I'd prefer each final branch to contain a list I can pull each final value individual value out of rather than dealing with string extraction. This is all to eventually plug all these variations into a parametric mesh model that now uses three sliders, and Python script also to bake them all as OBJ files.
Crucially I also need to obtain the numbers to use as part of my multiply exported OBJ files. I can so far only get a single range to export as a series of OBJ files automatically but not the whole three list array of them.
…