e case pictured already: don't bother how this truss is made and never mind that the def attached looks like an "add-on" (no components) - because it could be (so don't get stuck on that, it's irrelevant). In fact since the critical part (the 99% of the whole) if only doable with code ... it makes sense to do the rest with code as well (but that's my personal preference anyway, he he). Note: Balls are excluded from the demo.
You can toggle what "class" of struts is gonna being made with these booleans:
You can vary the sliders and if the code thinks that you make a valid input ... it obeys, he he.
But the big questions are:
1. Can you work with this in some interactive way? I mean vary any slider and ... wait ... for some change. Although the MERO components here are created ONCE and then placed around (minus obviously the tubes) ... they are placed as copies of the "donor" object (not instance definitions) creating a vast "pool" of "unnecessary" data.
2. What happens if you bake these little thingies? What file size you get? Is it OK?
But the bad news are that as I said ... this is ... NOT a task for a novice ... nor you can handle this get-a-truss-and-make-a-MERO-thing goal with half-measures: either you should do it properly ... or abandon ship.
NOTE: Load R file first (nothing is internalized).
Moral: even if this was made with components ... it wouldn't serve much.
best, Peter…
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
hino Mc Neel, autore di "Architettura Parametrica - Introduzione a Grasshopper", il primo manuale su Grasshopper. I corsi PLUG IT nascono dalla volontà di promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e condividere il know-how maturato attraverso ricerca, collaborazione con i più importanti studi di architettura e pubblicazioni internazionali. Verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti con esperienza minima nella modellazione 3D e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche ed esercitazioni. Argomenti trattati: - Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio - Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica - Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow - Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati - Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici - Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi - Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling - Attrattori, image sampler - Data tree: gestione di dati complessi - Digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi - Nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni piane per macchine CNC Verrà rilasciato un attestato finale. INFO E PRENOTAZIONI: http://www.arturotedeschi.com/wordpress/?p=2914…
f my list.I don't understand why, but I guess I must be too young user ^^In the original list, i have a path {0;0;0;4} with two index and after the random node, {0;0;0;4} has 88 index.Items are not correct?I would have a comparable structure has the right list on my jpg (photomontage...)How I can do that?Thank you in advance
…
akes the linear regression of the Schroeder integral over 30 dB worth of decay. Whether it is T-15 or T-30, they all seek to estimate the RT, which is always always the time it takes for sound to decay 60 decibels.
The website has benchmarks, for your reference. You can find them under the 'Pachyderm' drop down menu, under 'Benchmarks'.
Your model may well require millions of rays to be accurate. It sounds like a very large space. I'm sorry if that is an unpleasant answer. Sometimes it does help to have a computer with more cores to help with this. I have gotten up to 90% processor usage on a 12 core machine before.
Arthur…
hat differ in shapes, sizes and height the facade would be a mess. Some spaces need some light while other can't have any. I would like to have full freedom of creation inside the building, to make it as functional as possible. Thats why i decided the parametric "skin" solution would be best. Since the location has industrial past (factories made of brick) i decided that brick would give interesting result.
I tried creating the definition on my own but since i lack skill in GH i got some problems (especially multiplication of bricks and the diffrence between each "level" (half a brick on y axis) caused problems for me.
I post my simple sketch explaining the idea of definition i would like to create (sorry about quality):
1 - Brep - I would like to use 25x12x6cm (classic brick) but as well experiment with diffrent shapes - like the one on the right with hole inside - that would give more light. Thats why i think the best solution would be using brep for this definition.
2- Multiplication - biggest problem for me - I don't know how tall the wall would be, what will be the final shape of Brep (brick) and that's why i would like to manipulate this with sliders as well. All the walls are flat (maybe it would be easier to use surface?). As i managed to multiply the bricks easy way i don't know how to gain control over height of the wall - for example that it is 30 bricks high, but has each second row moved on x axis by the distance of 1/2 brick. I tried using Series but with no success. Could you help me with that please?
3 - Rotation - i would like to use image sampler for that so i can "paint" where i want more sun and where i dont need it at all (black and white). The rotation has to be limited to 180 degrees as well. Obviously i didn't get here yet, but i never used image sampler so if you could give me some advice how to use component and how to create such images i would be really grateful.
4 - More of a concept thing - since the connection angles differ from 90 degrees i will have to figure out how to connect the parts of the wall at sides ;).
I would like to ask you for help with the defintion, since i am totally stuck at step 2. I post what i came up with so far. Thank you for your time and help!
PS. I post an image that is pretty similar to one of options i would like to check for my building.
…
nputs to run (please refer to the image)
Currently, here is how I set the data:
protected override void RegisterInputParams(GH_Component.GH_InputParamManager pManager) { //Create default size
double defaultBaySize = 0; pManager.AddTextParameter("LotLib", "Llib", "Lot Library", GH_ParamAccess.tree); pManager.AddCurveParameter("BoundaryCrv", "BC", "Boundary Input", GH_ParamAccess.list); pManager.AddIntegerParameter("Direction", "D", "Direction of gridLines", GH_ParamAccess.item, 0); pManager.AddNumberParameter("CCsize", "S", "Distance from column to column", GH_ParamAccess.item, defaultBaySize); pManager.AddCurveParameter("GridCrv", "GC", "Take in curves input for gridlines", GH_ParamAccess.list);
}
protected override void SolveInstance(IGH_DataAccess DA) {/* Setup */ GH_Structure<GH_String> LotLib = new GH_Structure<GH_String>(); DA.GetDataTree(0, out LotLib); List<Curve> BoundaryCrv = new List<Curve>(); if(!DA.GetDataList(1, BoundaryCrv)) { return; } int Direction = 0; DA.GetData(2, ref Direction); double CCsize = 0; DA.GetData(3, ref CCsize);
List<Curve> GridCrvs = new List<Curve>(); DA.GetDataList(4, GridCrvs); if (!DA.GetDataList(4, GridCrvs)) { return; }}
Is there a way can set data in the way if the component does not receive inputs for BoundaryCrv but only GridCrvs, the BoundaryCrv List will empty.
Thank you very much …
o, presso la sede Eurac e il TIS, nei giorni 21,22 e 23 maggio 2015.
Il processo di progettazione integrata è riconosciuto come metodo per ottenere gli elevati livelli di qualità oggi richiesti agli edifici. Con questo approccio diventano sempre più rilevanti il comfort visivo e la gestione dell’illuminazione naturale in relazione al risparmio energetico. Di fatto, il nuovo protocollo Leed v4 riconosce crediti ad hoc e conferma l’importanza della progettazione daylighting per “collegare gli occupanti con lo spazio esterno, rinforzare i ritmi circadiani, ridurre l’uso dell’illuminazione elettrica con l’introduzione della luce naturale negli spazi”.
Una progettazione robusta richiede l’uso di strumenti di simulazione efficaci e Radiance è riconosciuto come uno dei software con le capacità di fornire risultati affidabili. Radiance è utilizzato sia a livello di ricerca che tra i progettisti, ed è tra i più accurati per la simulazione professionale della luce naturale ed artificiale. Non ha limiti di complessità geometrica ed è adatto a essere integrato in altri software di calcolo e interfacce grafiche. Le principali e più versatili tra queste (DIVA4Rhino, plug-ins per Grasshopper e Rhinoceros3D), essendo in grado di facilitare notevolmente le procedure di programmazione, saranno oggetto del corso.
Il corso è rivolto a progettisti e ricercatori che vogliano acquisire strumenti pratici per la simulazione con Radiance al fine di mettere a punto e verificare le soluzioni più adatte alle proprie esigenze. Sono previste lezioni di teoria e pratica con esempi ed esercitazioni volte a coprire in modo dimostrativo ed interattivo i concetti trattati.
Il corso viene riconosciuto con 15 crediti dall’Ordine degli Architetti.
Le domande di iscrizione devono essere presentate entro il 27 aprile 2015.
Scarica la brochure con tutte le informazioni Corso Radiance - EURAC.pdf
Il corso è sponsorizzato da Pellinindustrie.…