e rod with circular section (no goals allow for controlling torsion for what I know). The rods are set with two options, with straight rest position or the (initial) bent one. The calibration integrated with the model is more about giving a scale between the forces rather than the will to accurately simulate them (at the moment). Anyway, I am trying to do it on a macro scale, instead of a micro, with elements which are rather thin.
The system at the moment is not stable. In fact, besides the rods' characteristics is quite fundamental to keep them planar when they intersect. I am lacking something but also probably missing some parameters. In the script, there are two goals to define this: impose 90° between vertical and horizontal, as well as between these and a normal to their intersection. For my understanding, angle goal works tri-dimensionally without a preferred plane and this (hopefully) should address it.
Just wondering if anyone can give me a hint on this. After this step, it would be great to understand if the system can get out of its plane (through a pull force out of its plane, simulated in the script through point loads in the joints). I am still not entirely sure about the possibility of doing this. By looking at how other auxetic patterns have been used to generate freeform surfaces, I am giving it a try.
Thank you
Claudio
PS: I noticed also this post and this, really interesting. I see the problematic over the stability and the necessity to separate the states with an energetic hill in the first, as well as some potential in using auxetics in the latter.…
opening a simple file with 30 curves being lofted took like 2 minutes to complete and Rhino crashed afterwards saying:"Windows is out of memory and Rhino will close after you click ok."evethough I still had 7GB of free physical memory and my page file is set also to 16 GB just to be shure...I then switched to Rhino 5.0 Version 5 SR14 64-bit (5.14.522.8390, 05/22/2017) which also had big problems to display the lofted surface. It was unresponsive after loading the file for a minute and a half and then it normally displayed the lofted surface. Every move of camera takes at least 10 seconds to update, but at least it runs. GH profiler says the loft took only 12 ms (90%).
So I'm suspected my graphics card, because the Windows are just three weeks from a clean install. I've also updated my Graphics Driver from the stock Windows one to Intel HD one, but nothing changed.Is there something I'm missing??? What can I try next?My specs:CPU: i5-3320M @ 2.60 GHzRAM: 16 GBGPU: Intel HD Graphics 4000, driver: 07.04. 2017, version 10.18.10.4653
…
Added by Šimon Prokop at 10:39am on October 21, 2017
s para acercarse al diseño paramétrico.
El curso esta dirigido a arquitectos diseñadores e ingenieros de diseño que pretendan implementar las técnicas del modelado por parámetros dentro de sus herramientas de proyectación.
La duración de dicho curso es de 20 horas, repartidas en 6 sesiones los días lunes y miércoles de 5pm a 8:20pm, en el espacio cultural calle nueve (calle 9 # 43b-75 abajo del parque del Poblado. https://www.facebook.com/calle.nueve). El curso dará inicio el día lunes 22 de Agosto de 2011. El máximo de inscritos por curso es de 15 personas para garantizar la calidad de la enseñanza.
Este curso estará dictado por los arquitectos Ana Maria Bustamante Y David Vanegas arquitectos de la oficina de arquitectura interior137 (www.interior137.blogspot.com) que cuentan con más de dos años de experiencia en el manejo de GRASSHOPPER, y tienen una trayectoria reconocida como docentes en la Facultad de Arquitectura de la U.P.B.
Para participar en el taller los estudiantes deberán tener un computador portátil para su uso personal, durante todo el curso, además deben tener instalado el software Rhino versión 4.0 con la actualización SR9, y un conocimiento mínimo del modelado y la interfaz de este software.
Contenidos:
Sesión 1: * Introducción al modelado por parámetros y al diseño mediante algoritmos.
* Grasshopper: datos + acciones. Interface.
Sesión 2: * Datos fijos, datos variables: Parámetros.
* Puntos, Curvas parametrizables.
* Transformaciones: Mover, Rotar.
Sesión 3: * Datos múltiples (listas): Series. Rangos.
* Funciones de 1 y 2 variables.
Sesión 4: * Gestiones de datos en listas: seleccionar items, ordenarlos, desordenarlos, eliminarlos.
Sesión 5: * Atractores.
Sesión 6: * Superficies: creación de superficies, panelizaciones.
Informes e inscripciones:
Para inscribirse en el curso deberá reservar su cupo abonando el costo total del curso al menos hasta el miércoles 17 de Agosto. Este valor se devolverá totalmente únicamente en caso de cancelación del curso.
Para mayor información, póngase en contacto a través del correo electrónico interior137@gmail.com asunto: CURSO GH…
r-tools/
the hack is found here: http://fancywires.com/?p=499
it doesn't function the same as it used to, and i wonder if somethings have changed in the functions underlying the VB script or maybe some other updates to GH that are relevant.
furthurmore, i ask if anyone has made advancements on labeling techniques for cnc/laser cutting?
is there anything more built into GH to do this task?
Permalink Reply by Giulio Piacentino on Thursday
Yesterday I was asked a modified version of the script. Now it supports planes, so it should be easier to use.
- Giulio
Permalink Reply by gotjosh on Thursday
Delete
cool! I also recently adapted the old version to use an input plane instead of a point... i'll have to look at your script to see if we made the same solution.
thanks for your reply... is there anyway that your script could take care of the hack that fancywires has made afterwards? it would be great to have each letter returned cleaned and joined, so there were exactly the same number of curves in the output as characters in the input...
i am basically clueless with VB and .net scripting so far, but i can code in AS3 and php, so a small push in the right direction might get me far...
How can one return one single curve in a letter like "O"? Do you mean using single-stroke fonts? Or maybe returning a brep (polysurface) as output?
- Giulio
…
r interface to gsa, you'll find technical help/descriptions in it's help system. Certainly changing the type to Bar overrides any user defined releases.
The gsa solver must make special allowance for node "stability" when the elements connected are all bars (for rotation). If you're circumstance when you change type to Beams, your end releases are applied to axial and shear at all ends (note you can change the "close model" input on the solver component to false so you can see the analysis error). I think I previously discussed with Oasys about the COM interface sending back the "log" so I could display it in Grasshopper. Elements with axial and shear releases both ends are unrestrained, so it's causing the solver error. If you say released Fx and Fy at both ends it might work (I didn't test), certainly at one end only it should.
There's a hidden component (I can't remember if it's completed or not, i think so but not extensively tested) that can generate "tied interfaces" along edges of meshes to link nodes. Try dragging and dropping this string below onto the gh canvas.
{4661c381-1c36-4099-90f2-0d5cf0d30db3}
The trouble with rhino meshing is that polysurface edges can only have two adjacent faces, so getting coincident nodes along shared "edges" of surfaces is near impossible.
I do have some routines for "meshing" surfaces with simple geometry (ie 3 or 4 edged faces). This takes a distance setting and forces vertex spacing to respect this along edges, so tied interfaces wouldn't be necessary. If this is of interest, I'll see if I can provide it (or have done so) for the plugin. Let me know deadline/time frames you have for using this.
Look forward to hearing from you,
Jon…
he installation folder, Drag & drop SYNTACTIC(green one) over your grasshopper canvas.3. Close your rhino and reopen it. 4. Type GrasshopperDeveloperSettings5. Tick the Memory load *.GHA assemblies using COFF byte arrays option6. Run grasshopper and enjoy plugin…
it seems that was this. Now all is working fine !
Glad that it worked! But I am still a bit worried. Gismo components only modify the gdal-data/osmconf.ini file and no other MapWinGIS file. So your MapWinGIS installation files should not be compromised. The fact that you did not get the "COM CLSID" error message when running the "Gismo Gismo" component suggests that MapWinGIS has been properly installed. So I wonder if the cause for the permanent "invalid shapes" warning has again something with the fact that your system is again not allowing the MapWinGIS to properly edit the osmconf.ini. Maybe this problem will appear again, and again, and reinstallation of MapWinGIS every time can be somewhat bothersome.
- About the terrain generation, is it possible to have the texture from google or other provider mapped onto the terrain surface from gismo component ? (Same as using the ladybug terrain generator in fact). I try to used the image extracted by ladybug component and then applied it to the gismo terrain but the texture is rotated by 90°.
The issue with the rotation can be solved by swapping/reversing the U,V directions of the terrain surface. A slightly more important issue is that terrain surface generated with Gismo "Terrain Generator" component might have a bit smaller radius than what the radius_ input required. This stems from the fact that the terrain data first needs to be downloaded in geographic coordinate system, and then projected. Some projecting issues may occur at the very edges of the projected terrain, so I had to slightly cut out the very edges of the terrain which results in the actual terrain diameters being slightly shorted in both directions. This means that if you apply the same satellite image from Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component to Gismo "Terrain Generator" component the results may not be the same.I attached below a python component which tries to solve this issue by extending the edges of Gismo "Terrain Generator" terrain, and then cutting them with the cuboid of the exact dimensions as the radius_ input. Have in mind that this extension of the original terrain at its edges is not a correct representation of the actual terrain in that location. But rather just an extension of the isoparameteric curve of the terrain surface. So basically: some 0 to 10% (0 to 10 percent of the width and length) of the terrain around all four edges is not the actual terrain for that location, but rather just its extension.The python component is located at the very right of the definition attached below.
Also, if you would like to use the satellite images from Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component along with "OSM shapes", sometimes you may find slight differences in position of the shapes. This is due to openstreetmap data not being based on Google Maps (that's what Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component is using), but rather on Bing, MapQuest and a few others.
- About the requiredKeys_ input of OSM shapes, I understand what you mean and your advice, but in most cases I use it, the component was working fine even without input. I think it's better to extract all tags, values and keys of the selected area, instead of searching for specific ones as I try to find all data related to what I want after, isn't it ? To check what keys are present on the area also.
Ineed, you are correct.I though you were trying to only create a terrain, 3d buildings and maybe find some school or similar 3d building, for these two locations. The recommendation I mentioned previously is due to shapefiles having a limit (2044) to how many keys it can contain. This requires further testing of some big cities locations with maybe larger radii, which I haven't performed due to my poor PC configuration. But in theory, I imagine that it may happen that a downloaded .osm file may have more than 2044 keys. In that case shapefile will only record 2044 of them, and disregard the others. That was my point.But again 2044 is a lot of keys, and I haven't been checking much this in practice. For example, when I set the radius_ to 1000 meters, and use your "3 Rue de Bretonvilliers Paris" location I get around 350 something keys, which is way below the 2044.Another reason why one should use the requiredKeys_ input is to make the Gismo OSM components run quicker: for example, the upper mentioned 350 something keys will result in 350 values for each branch of the "OSM shapes" component's "values" output.Which means if you have 10 000 shapes, the "OSM shapes" component will have 10 000 branches with 350 items on each branch (values). This can make all Gismo OSM components very heavy, and significantly elongate the calculation process.With requiredKeys_ input you may end up with only a couple of tens of items per each branch.Sorry for the long reply.…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 8:57am on June 11, 2017
ails.
Some word about the mesh... (see Image_01)
I took a flat 4 points NURBS surface as imput (very easy, it defines the total area of my pavilion) and some points (that defines the contact with the ground).
Then I extracted a grid of points from the NURBS (Surface_Util_Divide surface) and compared 'em with the contol points, in order to associate to each grid's point its own attractor (Vector_Point_Closest Point).
Than I moved the points down. I used the distance from each point to its attractor (inverted) as amplitude for the vector of the movement, in order to say: the nearer you are to the control point, the more intense your movement will be. During this operation I've passed the distances' data list into a graph mapper (Params_Special_Graph Mapper), in order to regulate in a very intuitive and interactive way the shaping of my canopy.
At the end of the process I asked GH for a simple Delaunay mesh (Mesh_Triangulation_Delaunay Mesh). It's a very cool command, I believe!!!
Ok, now some word about the component, it's design and it's repetition/adaptation to the mesh...
(see Image_02)
I took the mesh and extracted components on first and faces's information on second. Then I selected and separated the vertexes (1°, 2°, 3°) of each triangular face into threee well defined list.
Then I re-created the triangles' edges. Please pay attention because it's not the same if you use output information from Delaunay components, because here we need a justapposition of edges where triangles touches each others.
After this work I joined the edges and found their centroid. At the same time I found the mid point of each edge.
Now the component... (see Image_03)
It' a little bit longer to describe: I'll try to be synthetic.
Substantially it is a loft from a curve to a point, repeated three times for each triangle (Surface_Freeform_Extrude Point). The point is an elevation of the centroid of the triangle (you can choose if the exstrusion has a single height or it's related to an attractor. In my case it was fixed). The curve is combination of things. There's an arch, which starts on the edge (there's an offset from the corner) end terminates on the same edge (on the other side, obviously). While it's generation the arch passes through a third point which belong to another segment. This last connects the mid point of the original edge (base triangle) with the centroid. The result is a kind of polyline, with two segments and an arch. If you go back to the image of the component that I posted probably you'll understand what I'm saying better than with the definition.
The posit…
up structural systems in the parametric environment of Grasshopper. Participants will be guided through the basics of analysing and interpreting structural models, to optimisation processes and how to integrate Karamba3D into C# scripts.
This workshop is aimed towards beginner to intermediate users of Karamba3D however advanced users are also encouraged to apply. It is open to both professional and academic users.
Earlybird (until May 10):
Professional EUR 750 (+VAT)
Educational EUR 375 (+VAT)
Course Fee:
Professional EUR 825 (+VAT)
Educational EUR 415 (+VAT)
Course Outline
Introduction & Presentation of project examples
Optimization of cross sections of line based and surface based elements
Geometric Optimization
Topological Optimization
Structural Performance Informed Form Finding
Understanding analysis algorithms embedded in Karamba and visualising results
Complex Workflow processes in Rhino3d, Grasshopper3d and Karamba3d
Places are limited to a maximum of 10 participants with limited educational places. A minimum of 4 places are required for the workshop to take place.
The workshop will be cancelled should this quota not be filled by May 31st.
The workshop will be taught in English. Basic Rhino and Grasshopper knowledge is recommended. No knowledge of Karamba3D is needed.
Participants should bring their own laptops with either Rhino5/Rhino6 and Grasshopper3d installed. A 90 day trial version of Rhino can be downloaded from Rhino3d.
Karamba3D ½ year licenses for non-commercial use will be provided to all participants.
…