Parametrica.Con grasshopper puoi gestire progetti complessi dal punto di vista della forma e dell'organizzazione con un solo strumento , dal design dell'oggetto , allo spazio dell'architetture , all'organizzazione urbanistica.Grasshopper è un software open source , in continuo aggiornamento da parte degli utenti , TRA POCO POTRESTI CONTRIBUIRE ANCHE TU AL SUO SVILUPPO !!!Sabato 11 MAGGIO 2013durata di 6 ore : dalle 10:00 alle 17:00presso : STUDIO REMODESIGN (via dei marsi n° 41)per prenotare chiama il numero : 3498381249oppure manda una mail all'indirizzo : contact@ivoambrosi.itvisita il sito: www.ivoambrosi.it…
hilst settings concern only the currently selected instance.
For instance assume that you are in the Bermuda Shorts business and you want various ideas concerning a new ad campaign:
Or assume that the 4 horsemen want from you to quickly present some concept proposals related with a terminal event that they have in mind:
…
till quite rough.
I went through your attached log but it seems to be a successful run, perhaps the error log wasn't attached. In any case, I believe we have identified this issue. The goal of the update fvSchemes component was to apply schemes to finalized meshes in an automatic way. While this is useful for new users it is also a dangerous thing to do in CFD studies.
The component works by relating mesh quality to the mesh non-orthogonality, which the checkMesh component reports. While non-orthogonality is one of the important criteria of mesh quality it does present difficulties on some kind of meshes, especially like the simple cases that BF has been meshing so far.
The example case of simple box buildings in a wind tunnel above for instance will appear as a good quality case for even the lowest of cell-count meshes, simply because it is an orthogonal geometry. That means that checkMesh will probably report low values (imagine an empty blockMesh of 10m blocks has a non-orthogonality of 0) which in turn means that higher order schemes might be paired with actually low quality meshes. This I believe is causing problems.
I posted a possible solution to this here https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Butterfly/issues/57. The idea is that Buttefly provides additional options to the users, enabling them to choose between first-order (faster, more robust, but lower quality schemes) and second-order (slower, less robust, but more accurate) schemes depending on mesh quality, stage of assessment, etc. In cases like the above mesh quality a first-order scheme might provide a better option. To test this I am attaching an fvSchemes file you can use by replacing yours in the /system folder of the case.
As a note however, I would like to stress there is so much that a tool like Butterfly can provide in this area. Meshing is a quite complicated and demanding part of the process, involving a lot of trial and error. Sometimes the problem is just the mesh and not the solution options (GIGO stands true in CFD as well). It does however get easier with experience. The safe advice is the simplest one: when changing solution options doesn't help, refine mesh and run again.
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
le with you.
I am trying to achieve the minimal path algorithm of Steiners tree in Python using the minimal path algorithm.The syntax would be as followsFirst I need to create a cube of any dimension.
Then I need to specify one origin say point A and destination point say B.
Now for this point A,B I need to create a machine based network which will automatically enroute A to B.
Where the angle will be constant i.e 120, length can be a variable, triangular node(steiners tree)using these constraints it will create a network.
Now, I should iterate the program in such a way that I should specify the further points say like A1 and B1 so on.The program will contain a limit constraint where it will come out of iteration loop and start a new loop,forming the network.
By this I will get a dense network of 120 deg branches.
The branching gets denser the moment I add source and destination points.
There can be 100 iterations to reach from A to B but the algorithm chooses the one following the minimal path.
I would be highly thankful to you if you would please share the python syntax and grasshopper definitionCapture.JPG for the same
Thank you for your time in advance
I would be highly grateful if you help me through
warm regards
Arya
12.gifShortest%20path%20algorithm.gh
min-paths.jpgcc.henn.studyimagesminimalpaths.jpg …
y in English. ○Presenter
Robert (Bob) McNeel (McNeel & Associates founder) Robert (Bob) McNeel is the founder and president of Robert McNeel & Associates (RMA). Founded in 1978, RMA originally focused on developing accounting software for accounting, architecture, engineering, and other personal services firms. Within a few years, RMA expanded its services to include selling and supporting microprocessor-based engineering and design software including AutoCAD. By 1985, the main focus of the business had shifted to AutoCAD sales, service, training, and software development. Bob McNeel grew up in the mountains of southern Washington State on a subsistence dairy farm. To pay for college, he worked in construction as a carpenter, welder, and cement finisher. Bob has a BA in Accounting from Washington State University. Prior to founding McNeel & Associates, he was a practicing Certified Public Accountant and the comptroller for a large construction company in Spokane. Andrés González (Rhino Fablab director) Andrés is a software trainer and developer since the 1980s. He has developed applications for diverse design markets as well as training materials for different CAD and Design software including the community of training materialswww.Rhino3D.TV Andrés has been working with the Rhino Team since the very early stages. He is now the head of the McNeel Southeast US & Latin American Division. He is the worldwide director of the digital fabrication community called RhinoFabLabwww.RhinoFabLab.com as well as the Generative Jewelry & Fashion Design community GJD3D www.GJD3d.com and Generative Furniture Design community GFD3D www.GFD3d.com 1981 -1985 University of North Carolina at Charlotte N.C. - EE.UU. B.S., Bachelor of Science in Engineering
…
Added by Yusuke Oono at 9:28pm on October 16, 2013
ra' nella finestra di Grasshopper, in alto, insieme agli altri set di componenti come 'Params', 'Maths', ecc.
Si tratta di un esperimento per cercare di ampliare in qualche modo l'ambito di utilizzo di Grasshopper.
Come sappiamo Grasshopper e' nato per consentire l'utilizzo parametrico di Rhino. Le definizioni di Grasshopper permettono di registrare i passi necessari per costruire gli oggetti, nonche' di variare i dati utilizzati dalla definizione, ad esempio oggetti geometrici, lunghezze, angoli, ecc.
Quando modifichiamo i valori utilizzati dalla definizione Grasshopper automaticamente ricalcola il tutto e ci mostra la preview del risultato.
A questo punto, se il risultato e' soddisfacente, possiamo dire a Grasshopper di inserire gli oggetti in questione nel documento di Rhino, cosicche' li vedremo apparire nelle viste come veri e proprii oggetti Rhino.
Questo modo di lavorare ha avuto un grande successo tra gli utilizzatoti di Rhino, rendendo molto piu' agevole la costruzione di oggetti nel caso in cui sia necessario procedere per tentativi, verificando il risultato prima di stabilire la forma finale da ottenere.
Il successo di Grasshopper pero' ha anche mostrato quanto sia comodo poter definire graficamente le procedure di costruzione, e in generale poter utilizzare Rhino tramite i componenti, ad esempio gli slider, che tutti noi, suppongo, vorremmo avere a disposizione anche quando usiamo Rhino nel modo classico tramite pulsanti e comandi.
Quindi col passare del tempo sono apparsi sempre piu' Add-on per Grasshopper che permettono di eseguire operazioni particolari o anche di utilizzare Grasshopper in ambiti diversi dal concetto originale di 'History programmabile'. Accodandosi a questa tendenza, edoc prova a costruire dei componenti che permettano di operare direttamente sugli oggetti Rhino, cioe' curve, superfici, layer ecc. appartenenti al documento Rhino su cui stiamo lavorando. L'idea e' permettere di utilizzare la comoda interfaccia utente di Grasshopper anche per operazioni che solitamente sono eseguite in modo tradizionale con pulsanti e comandi, o anche tramite script.
Come gia' detto, e' un esperimento. I componenti nascono, muoioni e cambiano molto spesso, nel tentativo di capire cosa puo' essere utile e cosa puo' fuzionare o meno.
Segnalazioni di bug, suggerimenti, considerazioni ecc. sono benvenuti.
se qualche anima pia volesse tradurre questa presentazione gli faremo un monumento equestre!
grazie e scusate
gg
…
nza dal centro delle facce ad un punto fisso per determinare quant'è il valore dell'offset per quella faccia.
Prova questa soluzione per ora:
- abilita il componente disattivato all'inizio;
- il componente curve offset non funziona bene, domani vedo se riesco a crearne uno migliore;
- inforna (bake) la brep risultante e convertila in mesh da rhino;
- per dargli spessore, fai l'offset solido della mesh in rhino per l'ultima fase, funziona meglio.
I've used the distance from the center of the faces to a fixed point to determine the value of the offset.
Try like this:
- enable the first component disabled;
- offset curve don't work perfectly, I'll try to fix it maybe...
- bake the brep and convert it into mesh in rhino;
- for the thickness, do a solid offset of the mesh in rhino for last phase, it just works better.…
me research involving shades and and solar radiation and I need the sun's path through the entire year to fully optimize the design. This far I've been able to simulate what I want by having my shadders following a mock solar orbit around them, what I need to know is to use a model that simulates solar paths, use it as an attractor point and have my shadding surfaces follow it, pretty much like that I am doing right now (or so I think)
Here's where my questions come around:
I remember finding somewhere on the internet a definiton that simulates the sun's path through the year; I think I can find it again and use it for my purposes. I think that I could just run the GH definition, bake the geometry and then upload it to Ecotect and have it run so I can get the data and keep working over that, then feed the geometry again to Ecotect, ad nauseam. However I think that is a very slow process.
Is there a way that I can run an Ecotect plug in of sorts within GH, that way I can get my data IN grasshopper and model accordingly?
Does that make sense?
Thanks a lot for any input.…
Added by Antonio Tamez at 3:40am on October 24, 2011
s for the sunlight hours analysis.
I'm producing BRE Annual Probable Sunlight Hours calculations and so to match the BRE approach, I'm using 100 sun vectors, each representing 1% of probable sunlight hours. I could use the Sunpath and Analysis Period components to produce sun positions for the whole year, but this gives results that do not fully reflect the BRE methodology - which is important here. I'm detailing this just to clarify that this isn't a full annual calc of 8760 hours for 350 surfaces.
Anyway, when I run the calc, it takes about an hour to run, but the Sunlight Hours Component itself reports a calculation time of 3 seconds! Does this mean that the rest of the time is all about prepping the brep geometry? If so, is there a reason why this is much slower than when using a view of sky recipe and exporting to radiance. For the same project, I completed a view of sky calculations and based on the number of test points and -ad setting, this was completing about 5.25 billions rays so I understand why that took an hour.
Any thoughts as to why the sunlight hours calc seems to take so long?
thanks
Nick
…