n the inability to be a real-life member within a parametric workflow (same kind of issue with Evolute Tools Pro).
As regards strictly AEC matters the main problem with GH is Rhino itself (not feature/constrain driven, not a solid modeler, not AEC oriented by any means and not biased towards assembly/component modeling). Other than that and due to the known GH inability to handle/manage blocks/nested blocks at bake time ... well... I hardly can see how "to set up work flows between different tools such as ..."
I'll post soon 5 - rather "trivial" - AEC cases that are totally undoable (shop drawing level) with anything other than CATIA (or NX).
BTW: since international practices grow and grow in numbers these days (and individuals are dead) I can't see any realistic limitation for creating dedicated teams (kinda like Frank Gerhy did) that can easily deal with the "extremely heavy" nature of the beast.
BTW: this is a job ad (Project Architect role) from one of the biggest US AEC practices (rather a corporation, he he)
How things change these days ... don't you agree?
best, Peter
…
nette for years.. but without the nice GUI. It also allows combining constraints solving to be part of the DAG.
What is parameterics? Or parametric associative as GC has been described. Can't remember. History or procedural modeling? Even constraints solving or rules based solving all use parameters. Is it generative or merely parametric? I guess the difference is a parametric door doe not generate other parameteric doors?
BIM has opened the door to a more data centric view and manipulation of the design model. To old skoolers a wall is a linear construct that can be abstracted into parameters... beginning and end points of wall in plan + height and thickness. But start adding other stuff and need to ineteroperate with others and things get problematic.
Pretty soon, all those abstractions (parametric or otherwise) need to be structured and you end up talking about schemas etc to control the format of the parameters using rules as checks or constraints..so that your parameters can interface with parameters from others without causing data quality issues. It all gets very database thinking like.
So, I would say parametrics as GH does it is more free form and ad hoc and at some point if it goes BIM, the parametrics will be need to be (re)structured..
BIM is dependent on IFC development which is not very fast. IFC4 is only beginning to think about parametrics and 'Design Transfer'.
…
humacher (Zaha Hadid) and in fact most issues of AD (Architecture Design)
The Politics of Parametricism: Digital Technologies in Architecture by Matthew Poole, which is kind of a follow up
In my opinion learning Grasshopper will be enough and there is no need to learn Python to use it successfully. Best to have a deep understanding of Grasshopper and what it can do then to try and learn too many things at once. It will help you in applying the principles to other code and not the other way round (ie. learning the concepts first and then going into grasshopper). The best way to learn the concepts is by applying and trying them in a tool like Grasshopper.
I absolutely recommend that you visit a Grasshopper workshop, as that will teach you a lot more than Youtube videos. If you cant visit a workshop, then I recommend the rese.arch video series on Grasshopper. They're really indepth and go from simple introduction to very advanced. You should ideally buy and complete all of them.
Also there is of course Dynamo and its integration with Revit and BIM, which is something to look at, although Grasshopper covers all of that as well, at least with the integration with ArchiCad. Autodesk products are more common around the world though.
Be aware that a lot of the power of Grasshopper is also in the plugins you can get for it, like Kangaroo (physics simulation), Ladybug&Honeybee (environmental analysis), Karamba (finite element analysis), Hoopsnake or Anemone (looping) and many, many more. You can find them at food4rhino.com.
Good luck!…
d the fact that one pipe goes out and one goes in, that the surface normal direction is opposite for the two surfaces? Based on an earlier thread, you should know why by now. The two curves have opposite directions (again!); see the white arrows using Rhino 'Analyze | Direction'?
As before, you can fix that by flipping one curve to match the other. HOWEVER, you connected your curves directly to the 'Divide' components instead of using 'Crv' geometry params - bad form. And as before, you "fixed it" by reversing the list of starting points ('S' input to 'BiArc'). Better like this - 'Crv' params are internalized, no need for Rhino file:
Well, well! That didn't fix the opposite surface normals after all! Trust me, though, using geometry params and being conscious about matching curve directions is "best practice". But I haven't lofted 'BiArc' curves for awhile, it's late and I want to move on. OH! I just noticed that you reversed the 'Z' direction for one half of the 'BiArc' - that explains it:
Moving on... You've basically got it, though I would do it differently - same result, like this:
I haven't really explained surface normal vectors - can you figure it out from here? One more little wrinkle (Normal_2017Mar17b.gh):
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 12:03am on March 18, 2017
ported to Rhino and "set" in Grasshopper, i trim both surfaces from their rectangular bases so that when sDivide is used it creates and distributes the same number of points on each surface.But heres the problems: a) if i use the "trimmed" surfaces with SrfGrid it errors warning: "A point in the grid is null. fitting operation aborted".I'd learned this was caused by "nulls" replacing position Data Items when the rectangular grid(surface base) was trimmed away. So i used Clean Tree which worked removing all nulls, then Shift Paths\Flip Matrix to create line-endpoint pairs for Polyline\Evaluate Curve. I Flattened the last Flip Matrix placing all data items in one source for SrfGrid, like in the working Untrim\CopyTrim definition.This time,.b) SrfGrid errored with: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.So, i substituted a 356 value, numeric Slider in the Addition B param., and tested its range until a valid UCount was found. Then SrfGrid fitted a surface thru the points, BUT,d) those SrfGrid surfaces are extremely deformed even thought the points preceding it from Evaluate Curve are accurate,SEE: def: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",AND,.a2) if i use Untrim with CopyTrim then SrfGrid works, but since the Jokers limbs WILL be in different surface positions then the blends between the Arm (for example) will rise from its relative FLAT position on the untrimmed Source surface to the Arm on the Target surface, rather than morphing from the Corresponding Arm position on the Source surface,. ..see def.: "4-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh"So please let me know,..1) how to produce accurate surfaces from SrfGrid in def.: "3b-RGH_SurfaceBlend.gh",. ..(NOTE: BOTH these def's contain 2 indentical, "internalized" surfaces, but if def. 3b can be made to work it will also work with Dis-similar surfaces)2) which component to use or how else to determine the correct UCount value for a specified amount of points(ie:155), re: SrfGrid error: "The UCount value is not valid for this amount of points",.3) how else to force SrfGrid to work with Trimmed surfaces?, AND,..4) how to force intersurface, point-blend correspondence lines: Polylines(PLine) to be connected between correctly! correponding positions (Limbs) on the surfaces?,
Really! appreciate all help, definitions and kind generosity common to this knowledgable membership,
Cheers!,
Jeff…
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.…
te some implications and questions so I will go one by one:
"Now I would like to use a single VRay material as a template for creating multiple identical materials"I hope this will work, but as VRay does not expose any SDK, I would not guarantee any specific result.
"Now I need to add them to the document material table"This is done with a reference to a document instance, such as the one you get with the code doc.Materials (both in C# and Vb.Net).
"I'm not going to learn C# to modify his script"That's a pity, it would be nice to pass on this troublemaker to somebody else! :)Btw, C# and Vb.Net are very very similar. This script could be written in Vb.Net too.
"Reference to a non-shared member requires an object reference. (line 96)"This only means that you need to access the Materials property on an instance, not on the type (class) name. Change that line using what is written at point 2.
"Do I understand that the material has to be assigned to a particular object in order to enter the Material Table?"No it does not. But if you call the _Purge command it will be removed if it does not have an object that references it.
"Can I assign it to a Layer instead?"You do not need to. But this would be achieved with doc.Layers[whichLayer].RenderMaterialIndex = materialIndex; in C# or doc.Layers(whichLayer).RenderMaterialIndex = materialIndex in Vb.Net.
"Any ideas? A better way to do this?"If you found a way to bypass the VRay SDK not being there, this should work.
"Giulio's component has a type hint defined as a Material"It does not any longer. The hint was there in earlier versions of Grasshopper, but now the hint has disappeared. This is not so bad, and it is also the only way you would be able to use either a Material instance already or a string for a material name.
"How was that done?"Probably it was done in an older version of Grasshopper. But which version are you using?
"I can't figure out how to cast the input as a Rhino.DocObjects.Material, so you can see that I have cast it as a compatible type in the first 2 lines... is there a cleaner way?"That sounds like a good way actually. Be sure your component responds properly when something wrong is inputted, though.Dim mTemp As Rhino.DocObjects.Material = CType(M, Rhino.DocObjects.Material)in one line might also work. See msdn for more conversion operators and functions.
I hope this helps,
- Giulio_______________giulio@mcneel.com…
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