he time to work with it.
the project is about facade strips which turns along height. the top angle is
parallel to the facade and the bottom is max. 90 degrees twisted, but the strips
should turn diffrently to achieve more dinamic look.
first i have tried to achieve this by calculating distance between the rotation angle from points of the grid and a single point.
then i have tried to ad some more effecting points and used the distance to the divided surface (the circles are just to control the area of effection):
i manually lofted it.
the result is a bit annoying becouse the points that effect the angle are always visible:
i have triend to solve this by drawing a line and divided it to recieve points along the bottom of the geometry. the result is not working properly:
Anyway,
there must be a better/smoother way to achieve this. i would like to effect the twist of the surfaces by distance to a spline, but im just lost. can you help me please?
the problems im encountering:
0- distance spline to grid to effect the angle
1- list of x/y coordinates and angle of rotation for each point of the grid
2- export points to excel
3- lofting lines in one direction only (x1, x2, x3...)
4- reduce the list data to 2 decimal (0,00)
5- maybe angle from radian to degrees
thx…
size component supported only ground PV panels and angled roof PV panels.
Download the newest PV SWH system size component from here (Click on "View Raw" to download it. Then move the downloaded .ghuser file to File->Special Folders->User Objects Folder, an confirm to overwrite it with previously located one).
Just a few opinions on the project you are currently working on:This kind of fixed, non-transparent (overhang) PV panels attached to a building facade are vert convenient for locations with higher latitudes.The reason for this is because they (fixed overhang PV panels) are dimensioned according to the sun position at summer solstice. Elevation angles on summer solstice at higher latitude locations are lower, than those of lower latitude locations.Due to Incheon's low latitude (37), you will get rather short length of the PV panels* : less than 10 centimeters (0.097 meters in the attached .gh file below). As you have mentioned, Galapagos needs to be used too.I will just mention some of the good and bad ways in which the upper issue could be somewhat avoided:1) Increasing the vertical distance between PV panels (PV panels appear above every second window).2) Increase the tilt angle. This will increase the length of PV panels also, but will decrease the final annual AC energy output.An example of this solution has been applied at FKI building in Seoul (latitude: 37N):I already did some tests (with tilt angles: 40, 45, 55) and this does not seem like a good solution, though.3) Shrinking the "sun window" by using the minimalSpacingPeriod_ input. In Photovoltaics, a planner is suppose to make the 9h to 15h part of the sun window free of any obstructions. If you try to decrease the "sun window" to 10 to 14h, the length of your PV panels will increase. You can try to experiment a little bit with this (set your minimalSpacingPeriod_ to 21th of June 10 to 14hours). In general, shrinking the sun window on summer solstice is not a good principle during planning.4) Using tracking PV panels, not fixed ones. But Ladybug Photovoltaics components do not support this kind of PV systems. They only support fixed ones.I would personally go with the first option. You can also experiment with the second and third one.Comment back if you have any other questions.-----------------------* By "length of the PV panels" I mean the: tiltedArrayHeight_ input of the PV SWH system size component.…
ed file and code below:
Color ColorAt(Mesh mesh, int faceIndex, double t0, double t1, double t2, double t3) { // int rc = -1; var color = Rhino.Display.Color4f.Black;
if( mesh.VertexColors.Count != 0) { // test to see if face exists if( faceIndex >= 0 && faceIndex < mesh.Faces.Count ) { /// Barycentric quad coordinates for the point on the mesh /// face mesh.Faces[FaceIndex].
/// If the face is a triangle /// disregard T[3] (it should be set to 0.0).
/// If the face is /// a quad and is split between vertexes 0 and 2, then T[3] /// will be 0.0 when point is on the triangle defined by vi[0], /// vi[1], vi[2]
/// T[1] will be 0.0 when point is on the /// triangle defined by vi[0], vi[2], vi[3].
/// If the face is a /// quad and is split between vertexes 1 and 3, then T[2] will /// be -1 when point is on the triangle defined by vi[0], /// vi[1], vi[3]
/// and m_t[0] will be -1 when point is on the /// triangle defined by vi[1], vi[2], vi[3].
MeshFace face = mesh.Faces[faceIndex];
// Collect data for barycentric evaluation. Color p0, p1, p2;
if(face.IsTriangle) { p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; } else { if( t3 == 0 ) { // point is on subtriangle {0,1,2} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; } else if( t1 == 0 ) { // point is on subtriangle {0,2,3} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.D]; //t0 = t0; t1 = t2; t2 = t3; } else if( t2 == -1 ) { // point is on subtriangle {0,1,3} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.A]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.D]; //t0 = t0; //t1 = t1; t2 = t3; } else { // point must be on remaining subtriangle {1,2,3} p0 = mesh.VertexColors[face.B]; p1 = mesh.VertexColors[face.C]; p2 = mesh.VertexColors[face.D]; t0 = t1; t1 = t2; t2 = t3; } }
/** double r = t0 * p0.FractionRed() + t1 * p1.FractionRed() + t2 * p2.FractionRed(); double g = t0 * p0.FractionGreen() + t1 * p1.FractionGreen() + t2 * p2.FractionGreen(); double b = t0 * p0.FractionBlue() + t1 * p1.FractionBlue() + t2 * p2.FractionBlue();
ON_Color color; color.SetFractionalRGB(r, g, b);
unsigned int abgr = (unsigned int)color; rc = (int) ABGR_to_ARGB(abgr); **/ var c0 = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(p0); var c1 = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(p1); var c2 = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(p2); float s0 = (float) t0; float s1 = (float) t1; float s2 = (float) t2;
float R = s0 * c0.R + s1 * c1.R + s2 * c2.R; float G = s0 * c0.G + s1 * c1.G + s2 * c2.G; float B = s0 * c0.B + s1 * c1.B + s2 * c2.B; color = new Rhino.Display.Color4f(R, G, B, 1); } } return color.AsSystemColor(); }
…
y using the Honeybee_Update Honeybee component.
The video below (best viewed in full-screen mode) provides an idea of what these components are capable of being used for:
The video below shows how these components can be used in an existing Honeybee project (for additional links please open this video in youtube):
I have uploaded two examples as Hydra files that show how these components can be used for grid-point and image-based simulations:
Example1 : Grid Point Calculations
Example2: Image based simulation
Finally, a more esoteric application is demonstrated in this video:
These components are still in the beta-testing stage. Some of the limitations of the components are:
1. Only Type C photometry IES files are supported at present.
2. Rhino is likely to get sluggish if there are too many luminaires (i.e. light fixtures) present in a scene.
3. Due to the spectral limitations of the ray-tracing software (RADIANCE), simulations involving color mixing might not be physically realizable.
Additional details about photometric and spectral calculations are probably an overkill for this forum. However, I'd be glad to answer any related questions. Please report any bugs or request new features either on this forum or on Github.
Mostapha, Leland Curtis, Reinhardt Swart and Dr. Richard Mistrick provided valuable inputs during the development of these components.
Thanks,
Sarith
Update 16th January 2017:
An example with some new components and bug fixes since the initial release announcement can be found here
…
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013
te some cut sheets, but not to optmize material, rather define some cut lines. Everything that I am cutting is made of planar wood elements, but there are very specific geometries (mostly straight lines) and I have to put tolerances and radiasas at the corners in order to cut on the cnc mill. Spending time to figure out how to automate is necessary, but I am stuck!
One thing the definition is doing is taking my brep modeled components in rhino and makking them into 2d close curves and laying them side by side. It works...not ideal as its not layed out in a sheet, but that is not the most important part.
Another particular problem is that you will see some notches in the curves, which other pieces will slip into, so different slots need different specific offsets (making them larger) as a toelrance to allow for material play. This I don't even know how to set up so maybe it will just have to wait.
THE MAIN QUESTION, and super important would be, LIFESAVER:
At all 'inward' corners...which I think will always mean concave corners (most are 90 degrees, but are within to sides, instead of a corner sticking out). I'm sure its obviousy, but the reason being the outward corners a circular dril bit can cut, but inward ones need an arc profile extended beyond where the corner of the other piece will fit into. The drill bit i am using is 6mm, so 6mm diamters arcs is what i'm working with.
I have managed to put such an arc at every vertices of each cut piece. The problem being some stick outward isntead of cutting into the piece. So each one needs to be orieneted correctly. Ideally they would also only draw into inward corners, but I can always delete them out. I think maybe I am missing a more logical mathematical way of defining?
For these geometries it is not very important which side the half circle arc in on in the inward corners, but I also have some geometries that I will have to control where the circles face according to the rest of the cut piece.
The cutouts in the middle of the pieces that are curves do not need such corners obviously.
The picture is an example drawn
I hope this isn't too specific and long. in general though automating fabrication, and controling pracitcal math and orientation problems like this is itnersting to me!
THANKS…
perienced with grasshopper, but so far I've managed to combine the following:
Giulio Piacentino's "Catenary arch from height" script
Pirouz Nourian's "Mobius" script (Obtained from a friend)
End Result:
Here's where I'm stuck: I want the mobius twist to revolve around the midpoint of the arch, but the script uses the input values to determine the endpoints, resulting in a weird sinuous shape when viewed from above. Also, the secondary end points (generated by the mobius script, determining the width of the surface) are generated by default along the z axis, resulting in an arch that only touches the "ground" at two points. I attempted to work around this issue by trying to force the zHeight parameter to correspond with the y axis (thus rotating the arch 90 degrees so it would lay "flat"), but the script interprets the third point as a value and not as an actual point to bisect. I thought this might be an issue with the C# component that I obtained from Giulio Piacentino's script, so I attempted to tinker around with the source code. Unfortunately, I'm not fluent in C# so I only managed to mess everything up (I've since recovered the code from the cache). Anybody got some ideas? -BC …
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!
…
next level.
This Parametric Design course will provide the participants with the necessary knowledge and ability to use Grasshopper, a free visual programming plugin in Rhinoceros; you will be guided through a series of hands-on exercises that highlight NURBS modeling and its concepts. We will introduce Grasshopper as a graphical algorithm editor tightly integrated with Rhino’s 3D modeling tools. You will also learn how Rhino is used to render models for visualization, translate 3D models for prototyping, and export 3D models into 2D CAD or graphics programs.
English is the course main language.
Location: Düsseldorf city center
Registration and buying Tickets
www.digitalparametrics.eventbrite.de
Course Calendar:
4 Days 6 hours each
Total duration 24h
2 weekends
Date:
Sat. 17 - Sun. 18 June
Sat. 24 - Sun. 25 June
10:00 - 17:00
Getting Started in Rhino. 2 days (17 - 18 June)
Getting Started in Grasshopper. 2 days (24 - 25 June)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Participants will be given a certificate of participation at the end of the course.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Course fees:
Professionals: 600€ (excl. MwSt.) Students: 500€ (excl. MwSt.) Students need to provide: Copy of current student ID or proof of student enrollment at University/School.
Group discounts:
Group of 3 professionals: 3x500 = 1500€ (excl. MwSt.)
Group of 3 Students: 3x400 = 1200€ (excl. MwSt.)
Participants are kindly asked to bring their own laptops and have pre-installed Rhino + Grasshopper.
Useful Resources:
Rhinoceros Installation (90 days full version trial available): http://www.rhino3d.com/download
Rhinoceros for Mac (includes Grasshopper) http://www.rhino3d.com/download/rhino-for-mac/5/wip
Grasshopper Free Installation: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/page/download-1
Grasshopper Free Plugins: http://www.food4rhino.com/app/lunchbox http://www.giuliopiacentino.com/weaverbird
Main Tutor:
Rihan
M.A. Dipl.Ing. Architect
Architect at RKW Architektur + Düsseldorf
For any questions about the course, please email: info@immersive-studio.com…
ll geometry.
The difference with programs like Inventor is that they are made for production, regardless of the fabrication method. I won't go into detail about that, and instead focus on the modeling process.
In this little model, the starting point actually is a bit obvious, the foundation.
The only contents in the 3dm file are 27 lines. These indicate the location of each footing, and the direction of the tilt of each column. Everything else is defined in GH with the use of numbers as input parameters.
Needless to say, instead of those lines you could obviously generate lines and control the number of columns and panels, hence establish their layout, with any algorithmic or non-algorithmic criteria you please. That marks a major difference between GH and Inventor.
You can generate geometry with Inventor via scripting/customization (beyond iLogic), with transient graphics for visual feedback similar to GH's red-default previews. However Inventor's modeling functions are not set to input and output data trees. I won't go into detail on that, but suffice to say that the data tree associativity of GH was for me the first major difference I noticed. I've used other apps with node diagram interfaces like digital fusion for non-linear video editing since the late 90's, so the canvas did not call my attention when I first started using GH.
Anyways, here's a screen capture of the foundational lines:
In the first group of components, the centerlines of the rear columns are modeled:
And the locations in elevation for connection points are set. Those elevations were just numbers I copied from Excel, but you can obviously control that any way you please. I was just trying to model this quickly.
The same was done for the rear columns:
The above, believe it or not, took me the first 5 hours to get.
Here's a screen capture of what the model and definition looked like after 4 hours, not much:
If you're interested, next post I can get into the sketching part you mentioned, which is a bit cumbersome with GH, but not really.
I wouldn't say that using GH to do this little model was cumbersome, it just needed some thinking at the beginning. You do similar initial thinking when working with a feature-based modeler.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 12:44am on February 24, 2011