r "virtual partitions" as follows:
What I mean "air walls" here, is derived from the description of the E+ documentation with the header of "Air wall, Open air connection between zones". (Page 17, http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/pdfs/tips_and_tricks_using_energyplus.pdf)
As I understand, the term "air wall" used in E+ here refers to a description of something like "boundary condition" between adjacent interzone heat transfer surfaces, but not a kind of "construction or material" (like air space resistance or air gaps within a wall/double glazing window).
The main purpose of introducing the "air wall", is to simulate or approximate the airflow/convection/natural ventilation effect between multiple thermal zones which are connected by a large opening.
In my previous tests, using HBzones and GB, I managed to create the gbXML file which can be successfully imported to DB (without assigning any constructions within HB). And the adjacency condition can be recognized automatically by DB, even when I did not use the "Solve adjacencies" component in HB - shared surfaces between multiple thermal zones are recognized automatically by BD as "internal - partition"(which are standard partitions, but not virtual partitions).
In order to create/approximate "virtual partition", I need to manually draw a "hole" in the standard partition surface (fig.1&2). Again, the reason why we want to use "virtual partitions"(or "air wall") is that it allows airflow between multiple thermal zones which are connected by large openings and we could get different temperature of the each subdivided thermal zone which compose a large thermal zone.
My question is, if there is a possible way to simulate/approximate this kind of "virtual partitions"(or "air wall") in HBzones or in GB? If so, I would like to test if DB recognizes it or not. Actually, we expect that there is no need to involve any manual operations (like drawing a "hole" in the standard partition surface) in DB, due to an automatic optimization loop.
Thank you!
Best,
Ding
fig.1
fig.2
…
are invisible in the picture.
So what you see it's a common band that has lost all those characteristics of the original in order to protect the process.
We also did an "invisible setting" prototype which has built in Flexibility.
If you are in the jewelry industry you would know what I mean and it is close to a miracle.
It's a shame I can not share details and this is why I am planning my next major work on something 10 times more complex then this, at least.
It's will be for my own business and for the jewelry industry as well.
I hate to tease people and then not to be able to produce anything more than an image.
But I thought it would be better than nothing, at least for jeweler designers, so they can see that there are more and more users and that complexity it is not something to shy away from, and it's worth the time spent because the returns on production are far larger than for special orders and this is why GH is useful.
We can design a piece of jewelry usually in less then 1 hour, hence GH is not really worth the time.
But for production with so many variables (Finger sizes controlling most of the outcome together with stone sizes etc.) then GH it's a MUST!
I really appreciate everyone's comments and suspicions and I understand why.
99% of the people out there do not really understand the complexity of jewelry at the industrial level. It' s not just form but the post-production that's the killer.
This industry it's still an hybrid of technology and art with, and due to the lack of the old school pros, unfortunately, we face very lousy and unpredictable execution in the post production (after the casting process). This leaves you with a design process and intention that requires a lot of control over every possible variant of the object.
One wrong design aspect it's multiplied thousands of times at the benches (for every single piece) = bad profits!
It sound more serious that it is but very few companies are willing to do so (delivering good product vs low quality and this also happens because the consumer is not longer aware of the difference. So, who does keep quality, it's only because of integrity, third party QA or just pride).
This is way GH is invaluable. This is why that Def looks like out of proportion for that (Visual) simple band.
It is because there are dozens and dozens of variable effecting everything else. In fact it is not even complete as it is in order to cover everything but the most critical ones.
Sorry for the long replays. I am an instructor and a professional jeweler by trade since I was very young and I love to teach, so I overflow with explanations... and Components :)).
Next time it will be "in the open" as they say...…
uments:
1. You are targeting CATIA don't you? (not exactly tomorrow but ... soon) and/or SolidWorks (hello C# haven't we met before?).
2. You MUST deal with nested block instances instead of what you are trying to do right now (I'm talking about the real MERO things not abstract Lines and points). This is not doable with GH components I'm afraid (but it's rather easy with code).
3. You MUST deal with RDBMS in order to keep track with what's going on in your company per project per case per designer (who sells that bolt? what's his cat name? is he a reliable supplier? what I'm doing in life? ... that sort of "queries"). At this point: CATIA is 1% CAD things and 99% PLM stuff (Product Life cycle Management). We do want that since it's 21st century running don't we?.
I hear you: but these are 3 arguments ... indeed but ... hey who's counting? he he.
Method:
A. This def attached has a very simple C# that gets mesh Pts and makes a nice U/V style collection of points (DataTree in plain English).
B. Then we go to that umbrella sticks thingy: we can calculate anything (already the thing does "some") plus your collections of divided points (with the right way, he he) VS a given node: you said (Skype) that you want to calculate angles with these (from 2 to 6) in mind: obvious since you are doing real-life MERO things.
C. Then we could calculate the appropriate Planes for PlaneToPlane transformations: get a nested instance definition (the red things that you've showed to me yesterday) placed at 0,0,0 (Plane.WorldXY) and put in in every Plane collection related with every node (clash defection is an obvious must).
Case resolved, closed: what about that Vodka?
More in Skype
…
merely automates finding clear intersections between pairs of objects and then splits the objects along those intersection *curves*, deletes the trims, then joins the remains, and cycles on. But within the confusing Rhino Settings tolerance value, wherever surfaces actually just sort of come closely together, there *is* *no* clear intersection curve. So it bugs out and stops working EVERY time you try more than a dozen or two spheres.
Some software can do this by switching to volumetric pixels (voxels). $9K-$30K Geomagic Freeform is an example of this. It also fails sometimes, often due to memory issues, as you can imagine since it needs to fill all inner space of each sphere definition with 3D pixels.
Materialize Magics for $16K can often handle such Booleans well. It will take a seeming lifetime to figure out such often pirate software kludges though.
One thing you can try though is to simply drape a mesh or NURBS plane onto the top of your spheres.
There's a well known *reason* your Booleans are failing. Nobody here has yet even hinted at it:
The main reason is that Rhino/Grasshopper developers don't care about the human element. The math exists to make this work very fast, every time. It just has to join things *right*, incorporating human knowledge of kissing surfaces, instead of acting stupidly, like some pocket calculator. But that would involve hacks that make 99% of complex Booleans work instead of 10%, and we can't have that since it will be SLOWER for the other 1% that just happen to have no nearly kissing or really kissing surfaces.
You could also use the new Cocoon plugin to do a surface *around* your structures, with a given radius of extension beyond the spheres, then offset that surface back the same radius. That is 100% robust, but won't offer quite as sharp of intersections, more rounded, like most everybody wants anyway.
You can *test* Boolean failures, by running a Grasshopper intersection command, to see the intersection curves, and zoom in to see how badly many of them are, all knotted, or twisted, or even with gaps, often with gaps.
It's a math problem nobody at McNeel wants to solve, sorry.
Just write a check for $25K and spend six months taking notes, like I did, and you can merge your simple spheres finally.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:33pm on October 20, 2015
edit 29/04/14 - Here is a new collection of more than 80 example files, organized by category:
KangarooExamples.zip
This zip is the most up to date collection of examples at the moment, and collects t
lla progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse
___________________________________________________________________________________
luogo:
Sala meeting Hotel Mercure Milano Centro Piazza Oberdan 12 – 20129 MILANO
Scadenza iscrizioni: 12 Novembre 2011 – ore 15.00
___________________________________________________________________________________
info e prenotazioni:
Le Penseur (coordinamento formazione)
info@lepenseur.it
081 564 21 84
347 548 71 78
quote di partecipazione e programma (formato PDF)
ulteriori informazioni sui corsi PLUG > IT
___________________________________________________________________________________
PROGRAMMA DEL CORSO
GIORNO_01
10.00 – 10.30: presentazione workshop
10.30 – 11.30: introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio
11.30 – 13.00: Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica
13.00 – 14.00: break | lunch
14.00 – 16.00: nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow
16.00 – 18.00: esercitazione
GIORNO_02
10.00 – 12.00: funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati
12.00 – 15.00: analisi e definizione di curve e superfici
GIORNO_03
10.00 – 12.00: definizione di griglie e pattern complessi
12.00 – 13.00: trasformazioni geometriche, paneling
13.00 – 14.00: break | lunch
14.00 – 16.00: esercitazione
16.00 – 18.00: attrattori, image sampler
GIORNO_04
10.00 – 13.00: data tree: gestione di dati complessi
13.00 – 14.00: break | lunch
14.00 – 15.00: digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi
15.00 – 18.00: nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni e posizionamento su piani di taglio per macchine a controllo numerico CNC…
ers and researchers, programmers and artists, professionals and academics who come together for 4 days of intense collaboration, development, and design.
The sg2012 Workshop will be organised around Clusters. Clusters are hubs of expertise. They comprise of people, knowledge, tools, materials and machines. The Clusters provide a focus for workshop participants working together within a common framework.
Clusters provide a forum for the exchange of ideas, processes and techniques and act as a catalyst for design resolution. The Workshop is made up of ten Clusters that respond in diverse ways to the sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities.
Applicants to the sg2012 Workshop will select their preferred cluster from the following:
Beyond Mechanics
Micro Synergetics
Composite Territories
Ceramics 2.0
Material Conflicts
Transgranular Perspiration
Reactive Acoustic Environments
Form Follows Flow
Bioresponsive Building Envelopes
Gridshell Digital Tectonics
More information about the Workshop and Clusters can be found here:
http://smartgeometry.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=116&Itemid=131
The application process will close on January 15th, 2012.
Full Fee $1500
Reduced Fee $750
Scholarship Fee $350
Fees include attendance to both the workshop and conference from March 19th-24th.
Reduced Fee and Scholarships are available only for Academics, Students and Young Practitioners, and are awarded during a competitive peer review process.
sg2012 takes place from 19-24 March 2012 at EMPAC (http://empac.rpi.edu/) and is hosted by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, upstate New York USA. The Workshop and Conference will be a gathering of the global community of innovators and pioneers in the fields of architecture, design and engineering.
The event will be in two parts: a four day Workshop 19-22 March, and a public conference beginning with Talkshop 23 March, followed by a Symposium 24 March. The event follows the format of the highly successful preceding events sg2010 Barcelona and sg2011 Copenhagen.
sg2012 Challenge Material Intensities
Simulation, Energy, Environment
Imagine the design space of architecture was no longer at the scale of rooms, walls and atria, but that of cells, grains and vapour droplets. Rather than the flow of people, services, or construction schedules, the focus becomes the flow of light, vapour, molecular vibrations and growth schedules: design from the inside out.
The sg2012 challenge, Material Intensities, is intended to dissolve our notion of the built environment as inert constructions enclosing physically sealed spaces. Spaces and boundaries are abundant with vibration, fluctuating intensities, shifting gradients and flows. The materials that define them are in a continual state of becoming: a dance of energy and information. Material potential is defined by multiple properties: acoustical, chemical, electrical, environmental, magnetic, manufacturing, mechanical, optical, radiological, sensorial, and thermal. The challenge for sg2012 Material Intensities is to consider material economy when creating environments, micro-climates and contexts congenial for social interaction, activities and organisation. This challenge calls for design innovation and dialogue between disciplines and responsibilities. sg2010 Working Prototypes strove to emancipate digital design from the hard drive by moving from the virtual to the actual in wrestling with the tangible world of physical fabrication. sg2011 Building the Invisible focused on informing digital design with real world data. sg2012 Material Intensities strives to energise our digital prototypes and infuse them with material behaviour. They have the potential to become rich simulations informed by the material dynamics, chemical composition, energy flows, force fields and environmental conditions that feed back into the design process.
More information can be found at http://www.smartgeometry.org
Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/smartgeometry…
Added by Shane Burger at 12:29pm on December 13, 2011
It was originally developed at NBBJ by the Design Computation Leadership Team over the course of about 10 months in 2015-2016.
Primary development by:
Andrew Heumann / andheum / @andrewheumann
Lead Developer
Marc Syp / marcsyp / @mpsyp
Product Manager
Nate Holland / nateholland / @_NateHolland
Contributing Developer
----
Gone are the days of faking a user interface by laying out sliders and text panels and hiding wires on the Grasshopper canvas. Human UI interfaces are entirely separate from the Grasshopper canvas and leverage the power of Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), a graphical subsystem for rendering user interfaces in the Windows environment.
OLD NEW
In other words: Human UI makes your GH definition feel like a Windows app. Create tabbed views, dynamic sliders, pulldown menus, checkboxes, and even 3D viewports and web browsers that look great and make sense to anyone--including designers and clients with no understanding of Grasshopper.
Download the plugin + sample files:
Food4Rhino
View the project on Bitbucket:
Bitbucket
We look forward to seeing where this project takes you, please share your projects made with Human UI!…
basis" problem ... all of a sudden - quite recently - a girl posted the MITESIGF (Most Important Thread Even Seen In Grasshopper Forums). She doesn't even realized that: she's novice:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/array-1
4. Why this MITESIGF is MITESIGF? For 2 reasons:
4.a: Wooden pairs (Beams) Profile Curves (belonging in some tree) MUST allow individual control on a per "item basis" (OK, that's obvious) - see Images posted in the thread. No attractor (or any other "global" policy) can cut the mustard here (to tell you the truth this happens in 99% of pure engineering cases, but they appear very rarely in GH Forums - if at all, mind). If the profile curves are defined with 5 points (or 9 for the double thing) we need "on-the-fly" control over this Array (like the radii in your Sphere Manipulator) :
4.b: Critical Bottom-to-Top issues arise: Create a "global" topology (call it "parent") - the beams - and then place real-life "components" (call them "childs") that affect (most probably) the "parent". OK, that's impossible to do with GH/Rhino (peace of cake with CATIA/Microstation) but you can "approximate" things up to a point. Alternatively: you can "trigger" some interest from GH/Rhino developers if they have any AEC market(s) in mind.
Topic 4.a requires the master-to-slave slider thingy (iterate over branches (index slider:master) > reset the 5 values (value slider:slave) > modify them on the fly > save > increase/decrease branch > ...).
Other than that my definitions are far more challenging than this simple case ... but ... anyway ... long is the path (and hilly).
more soon.
best, The Troll
…
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…