ellation tool of GeomGym in Grasshopper.
The design looks for a new brick topology which is in the shape of two generative elements of Weaire-Phelan structure; dodecahedron and tetrakaidecahedron. An innovative approach is taken by applying varying types of solutions and details to the new brick elements.
There are other good examples and winners which are worth looking into. Our sheets can be downloaded from here.
All comments appreciated.
We would like to thank Jon Mirtschin and anyone who contributed to this tool.
Xue Ai and Serdar Aydin…
simple, there are many symetries in 3 main planes. So I used arcs rotated 45° from the main planes and I generate a pentagon which was mirrored and rotated many times.
At the end there are 24 pentagons and 8 hexagons so 32 faces, 54 points/vertex and 84 edges.
It could generate some others tessalation styles
…
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 …
p; 3D Urban ModelingOn the topography subject I get the next message: "One or more boundaries may be outside the bounds of the topo dataset" I'm not sure if it's the .IMG file I'm loading since I found so many IMG files nearing my polyline area (Miami Lat:26 Lon:-81 aprox.) or maybe my polygon doesn't match the topo area? I have no idea why it isn't working :(On the Shapefile subject, haven't been able to find a Building Height SHP File, so far have downloaded around 8 SHP files which only contain Polylines, my solution is to meanwhile randomize Z heights, but of course this data is not "technically" correct.P.S.: I've already tried all example links and also the ones posted by you and Benjamin in this video.Been strugling last few days, hope you can help me, thanks in advance!!…
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!
…
Simpsons episode were Bart goes into a mall and in the time he goes in and out of a shop all others have been turned into Starbucks.
I personally don't like it but you can't say they are crushing all competitors because, as far as i know, all owners of those software packages voluntarily sold their property for a good price. I would actually be more worried that an antitrust lawsuit was filed against Autodesk.
For example, this is what happened with Rockefeller's Standard Oil:
The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.[32]
The court argued, in essence, that Standard Oil was a "large" company with many divisions, and if those divisions were in reality separate companies, there would be more competition. The court made no mention at all of the industry's economic performance; of supposed predatory pricing; of whether industry output had been restrained, as monopoly theory holds; or of any other economic factors relevant to determining harm to consumers. The mere fact that Standard Oil had organized some thirty separate divisions under one consolidated management structure (a trust) was sufficient reason to label it a monopoly and force the company to break up into a number of smaller units.
To economists, "predatory pricing" is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity, either.
In other words, the organizational structure that was responsible for the company's great efficiencies and decades-long price cutting and product improving was seriously damaged. Standard Oil became much less efficient as a result, to the benefit of its less efficient rivals and to the detriment of consumers.
From: http://mises.org/daily/2317
(Beware, that site is very ideologically charged)…
points within the bounds of the site boundary and use each location as an attractor point controlling a variable at each point in the grid (radius of a circle/height of a cube/colour based on a gradient etc.).This would be based on proximity to the attractor points with the effect of each attractor point essentially scaled by the percentage associated with it. For example a location with 88% visitor rates would have a more dramatic effect than a location with 26% visitor rates.
I've had a bit of a play around but can't seem to get beyond the point of what is shown in basic point attractor tutorials online. I'm definitely a novice.
Here's how I figured it would be done:
1) Create a grid of source points within a boundary curve.
2) Select 18 pre-defined attractor points.
2) Measure the distance between the source points and the attractor points.
3) Invert this data so that variables increase with proximity rather than decrease.
4) Give each of the attractor points a strength value from 1-100% based on the visitor rates.
5) Use the scaled data to control a variable at each of the source points.
6) Create some way to control the drop-off rate of the effect from each point.
It is at step 3 that I get completely lost.
I hope my description is clear. Any help would be greatly appreciated,
Adam
…
button to generate such complicated and unruled geometry. Seriously, if you don't understand a geometry, how can you solve the structural needs and the bloody fabrication. Giant fast prototyping machines doesn't exist!
In a era where ressources and energy is getting scarce, I don't understand this trend of fancy no sence look like organic buildings. They just look organic in our human perception. Nature builds things with define physical and biochemicals rules, and this is why when they grow, they look like that. You should study Frei Otto publication from the 80's.. the IL publications. They were using physical models to generate physical structures that would be build in the physical world. Computers and softwares are dangerous as we distach from reality.
We put all this effort to generate these fancy forms, but no brain is put in structural optimization, energy efficiency (for instance in relation with the sun, or other natural elements)
IT technology goes faster than the time we have to reflect about it. (not talking about the technics).
As Frei Otto told me personally in our last discussion (talking about philosophy and architecture): " We have to define the OPEN QUESTIONS. Once these questions will be defined, you'll get answers".
I think we are getting to a question here: " How to use this technology to solve problems in Architecture?" Before that " What are the real problems in architecture?"
Maybe David should make a component for that? For instance, a button that could solve the loging and infrastructure problems for these millions of people living in the slums of Mumbai...
What about that Krish Raj?…