define the "numOfContours_: input to 2, the terrain geometry will have only two isohypses from its highest to the lowest point. With 80, you will have 80 of them. Have in mind that if "standThickness_" input is larger than 0 (it means a stand will be created below the terrain), then the isohypses will be applied to the stand as well, as it is the continuation of the terrain.
To get the terrain elevation legend, one needs to use the "Terrain Analysis" component. Check the attached file. I changed the "source_" input, because your location is Paris suburb. In this cases the "source_=2 (GMRT - underwater terrain)" will also generate the land terrain as well. But with less precision than source_=1 and 2, which are meant to be used for land terrain.Please let us know if you have any other questions.…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 3:18pm on April 1, 2019
dred 500x500 images using blurring radii smoothly ranging from 2 to 200 pixels. Ie. about 650 milliseconds for a blurring radius of 200 pixels, and ~10 milliseconds for a radius of 2 pixels.
During the process, my CPU load varies between 80% and 90%, but that includes all the stuff the system is doing (always a few percent).
…
pe and its surface.
However, I don't have that much knowledge about both grasshopper and Mathematica.. I mean I can only make assumptions and think about relations of certain functions but that's all.
If you can help me on this, I would appreciate it so much.
You can see a screenshot of the code and model of the demonstration from mathematica in attachment.
And here is the mathematica code;
Manipulate[ Module[{\[CurlyEpsilon] = 10^-6, c1 = Tan[a1], c2 = Tan[a2], c3 = Tan[a3], c4 = Tan[a4], c5 = Tan[a5], c6 = Tan[a6]}, ContourPlot3D[ Evaluate[ c6 Sin[3 x] Sin[2 y] Sin[z] + c4 Sin[2 x] Sin[3 y] Sin[z] + c5 Sin[3 x] Sin[y] Sin[2 z] + c2 Sin[x] Sin[3 y] Sin[2 z] + c3 Sin[2 x] Sin[y] Sin[3 z] + c1 Sin[x] Sin[2 y] Sin[3 z] == 0], {x, \[CurlyEpsilon], Pi - \[CurlyEpsilon]}, {y, \[CurlyEpsilon], Pi - \[CurlyEpsilon]}, {z, \[CurlyEpsilon], Pi - \[CurlyEpsilon]}, Mesh -> False, ImageSize -> {400, 400}, Boxed -> False, Axes -> False, NormalsFunction -> "Average", PlotPoints -> ControlActive[10, 30], PerformanceGoal -> "Speed"]], {{a1, 1, "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(\[Alpha]\), \(1\)]\)"}, -Pi/2 - 0.01, Pi/2 + 0.01, ImageSize -> Tiny}, {{a2, 1, "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(\[Alpha]\), \(2\)]\)"}, -Pi/2 - 0.01, Pi/2 + 0.01, ImageSize -> Tiny}, {{a3, 1, "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(\[Alpha]\), \(3\)]\)"}, -Pi/2 - 0.01, Pi/2 + 0.01, ImageSize -> Tiny}, {{a4, 1, "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(\[Alpha]\), \(4\)]\)"}, -Pi/2 - 0.01, Pi/2 + 0.01, ImageSize -> Tiny}, {{a5, 1, "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(\[Alpha]\), \(5\)]\)"}, -Pi/2 - 0.01, Pi/2 + 0.01, ImageSize -> Tiny}, {{a6, 1, "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(\[Alpha]\), \(6\)]\)"}, -Pi/2 - 0.01, Pi/2 + 0.01, ImageSize -> Tiny}, AutorunSequencing -> {1, 3, 5}, ControlPlacement -> Left]…
components are essential.
I would love to see GH in "pure" mode - no components which can be made simply with other components (such as - no a2 (square) and a3 (cubical) - only "a powered by n")
…
, so using distance to centre point, you can give all the useless values a 1. Cutting down the values you actually need to work out by 80%. Which is helpful when approaching 1 million points.…