ut in the next few days.
I've found getting really good handling of static vs kinetic friction to be a pain though.
Distinguishing between collisions and resting contact generally becomes more complicated than it might first appear.
If the collision with the mesh or ground is 'hard' I project the particle positions, so they can never penetrate, and reverse the component of their velocity normal to the surface (multiplied by the restitution factor). This means that whenever you have some structure of springs resting on a hard surface, there is usually still some tiny imperceptible bouncing. This makes it hard to properly apply static friction (which would zero the tangential velocity if the tangential force was below some threshold and it is not already sliding), because particles are generally not perfectly on the surface, even when apparently at rest. Obviously it's not good to have friction affecting things that aren't touching the surface.
This is the origin of the 'settle' parameter in the settings. The idea was that when the motion of a particle normal to the surface drops below that limit, it will be totally zeroed, and the particle becomes properly resting on the surface. I never really like having to use these kind of weird ad hoc fixes though.
Alternatively, if the collision is 'soft' I use a spring-like force to push particles out of the ground/mesh.
This can cause problems because in many cases you just want a simple constraint that they never go below ground level, and there is a limit to how stiff you can make these spring-like forces.
The advantage though, is that because any particle resting 'on' the ground/surface will actually be slightly below/inside it, and one can use this to decide whether to apply contact friction.
With bouncing collisions, it is a little simpler. There is just the question of what to do with the velocity component tangential to the surface. See the bottom comment by me here, for more on the 'tumble' setting:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/video/kangaroo-traction-test
So you see, it is challenging to get one consistent model that will give correct behaviour for all cases (eg a simple static 'leaning ladder' type problem, a bouncing particle, and vehicle wheel traction), without having several of these odd seeming and non-intuitive settings.
…
Added by Daniel Piker at 11:11am on October 18, 2012
m is different from email spam.
Email spammers want you to buy their product. You are the target of the ad contained in each email spam you receive. Comment/web spammers want your readers to buy their product. You (the blogger, author, moderator) are not the target.
2. Web spammers are social engineers.
Email spammers write messages to get your attention. Comment spammers write messages to escape your attention. They want you to believe they are real bloggers, real people, writing real comments, so you’ll approve the comment and publish it on your site. They use flattery, appeal to your good nature, and simply lie in order to convince you to give them the benefit of the doubt.
3. Web spammers are basically advertising on your blog..
..and they're keeping all of the profits. They’re not even asking your permission first. Right now someone is offering to sell links from your blog to anyone willing to pay a few dollars (or a few cents). If your blog is well known, it may even be listed by name, with backlinks for sale at a set price.
4. It’s all about the backlinks.
Web spammers are selling links from your blog to their clients. They do this to game the search engines and trick your readers into visiting dubious web sites. Their clients are sometimes seemingly harmless, but are often peddling fake pills, porn, scams and malware. Sometimes they’ll use “buffer sites” – that is, innocent looking web pages intended to disguise the fact that they’re really advertising something more sinister.
5. Spammers employ humans.
Not all spam is delivered by spambots. Spammers are increasingly using humans to write and post comments by hand. Typically they are exploiting low-paid workers in internet cafes, schools and factories. Sometimes they are viral marketers paid to promote a new product. Either way they are trying to exploit your blog for their profit – and hoping to do it without you noticing.
…
Added by Danny Boyes at 4:51am on October 24, 2013
ents will react to sensors, creating a range of different lighting and spatial effects that will trigger further movement and produce a feedback loop of behaviour and response. To accommodate this responsiveness, the design will be developed using parametric associative modeling, processing, arduino, and digital fabrication using the CNC and Laser Cutters. Students can both develop completely new designs, and/or work on the evolution of the Workshop 1 Supple Pavilion project.
The Visiting School will return to Barracão Escola de Carnaval to evolve the design of the migrating Pavilions, their contents and their context, exploring a design philosophy of interactive event design and the production of a creative fusion of high-tech design generation and fabrication with low-tech redefinition of Carnival-float artisan techniques, paraphernalia, and materials. We will work in the immense and creative Pimpolhos warehouse, collaborating with local artisans of several Samba Schools in the post-industrial, partly-derelict Porto do Rio area, (the birthplace of the Carnival and Samba), introducing digital fabrication techniques. The goal is to create interventions for micro-venues and cultural events that express the identity of the Samba culture within the `Porto Maravilha` planning.
Instruction for the Supple Pavilions workshop series will be led by Rob Stuart-Smith of Kokkugia, Lawrence Friesen of Generative Geometry, Ivan Ivanoff of Interactive Art Estado Lateral Media Lab, Toru Hasegawa of Proxy, with Anne Save de Beaurecueil and Franklin Lee of SUBdV, along with other AA tutors, the Pimpolhos Artistic Directors, and Carnival float-fabricators. Each workshop will provide an introduction to computational design (Grasshopper, Processing and Arduino) and digital fabrication, no previous computational experience is required. Students taking part in multiple workshops will have access to advanced computation instruction. This workshop will produce 1:1 prototyping, exploring the structure and transformations of the pavilions. Final fabrication and assemblage will occur in July.
The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide. Participants can take part in one or more workshops, with fee discounts offered to those interested in multiple workshops.
…
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013
tema della modellazione parametrica con Grasshopper. Questa plug-in di Rhino consente di progettare, confrontandosi con un contesto evolutivo, attraverso la comprensione e l'utilizzo di parametri e componenti che influenzano la rappresentazione e la rendono dinamica componendo algoritmi. Nel corso 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.
Le informazioni teoriche saranno fornite in maniera accelerata ma organica e contestuale agli argomenti elencati. Per massimizzare i risultati, le lezioni saranno accompagnate da piccole esercitazioni pratiche.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 complessiStrutturaIl corso ha una durata di 16 ore programmate nell'arco di 2 giornate con i seguenti orari: i giorni 10/11 e 11/11 dalle 10,00 alle 19,00 con pausa pranzo di un'ora.
PrerequisitiPer affrontare il corso è richiesta una conoscenza di base del software Rhino attraverso esperienze teoriche e pratiche. I partecipanti dovranno venire muniti di proprio laptop e con software Rhinoceros 5 o Rhinocero 4 perfettamente funzionanti.Alla fine del corso, verrà rilasciato l’attestato di partecipazione ad un corso qualificato certificato dalla McNeel, valido anche per l’ottenimento di crediti formativi universitari.
…
, presso la sede Manens-Tifs, nei giorni 26,27 e 28 maggio 2016.
Il comfort visivo e la gestione dell’illuminazione naturale in relazione al risparmio energetico diventano sempre più rilevanti per una progettazione innovativa degli edifici. Ad esempio, il nuovo protocollo LEED 4 riconosce crediti per le simulazioni di daylighting e conferma l’importanza degli aspetti progettuali per “collegare gli occupanti con lo spazio esterno, rinforzare i ritmi circadiani, ridurre i consumi di energia elettrica per l’illuminazione artificiale con l’introduzione della luce naturale negli spazi”. Senza strumenti software per la simulazione della luce non è possibile ottenere risultati di qualità. Radiance è un software validato, utilizzato sia a livello di ricerca che dai progettisti ed è tra i più accurati per la simulazione professionale della luce naturale e artificiale. Non ha limiti di complessità geometrica ed è adatto a essere integrato in altri software di calcolo e interfacce grafiche. Queste ultime facilitano le procedure di programmazione. Le principali e più versatili saranno oggetto del corso (DIVA4Rhino e Ladybug+ Honeybee, plug-in per Grasshopper e Rhinoceros 3D).
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.
Le domande di iscrizione devono essere presentate entro il 12 maggio 2016.
La brochure con i contenuti del corso e tutte le informazioni sono disponibili su questo link
Il corso è sponsorizzato da Pellinindustrie.…
la plug-in Grasshopper. L'utilizzo dei due software permette di esprimere al massimo le qualità e le potenzialità della modellazione Nurbs e Mesh attraverso l'esplicitazione di algoritmi compositivi. Il corso introdurrà alle strategie di disegno digitale finalizzate alla progettazione di forme complesse utilizzando un caso studio proprio del mondo dell’architettura. Si affronterà l'intero processo di modellazione, partendo dal disegno di una superficie complessa; su questa verranno applicati algoritmi generativi per la tassellazione e la riduzione della complessità in elementi ottimizzati per la produzione. Una delle finalità del corso è quindi l’ideazione di superfici complesse, approfondendo metodi di fabbricazione digitale.
Il metodo del corso è basato sulla risoluzione di un esercizio step-by-step accompagnato da approfondimenti teorici che porteranno il partecipante all'autonomia nell'utilizzo di Rhinoceros e Grasshopper. Durante il percorso verranno illustrati applicativi avanzati del software per la pannellizzazione delle superfici (Paneling-Tools). Con il processo illustrato nel corso si vuole rendere il lavoro del progettista più facile grazie alla riduzione dei tempi che portano dal disegno dell’idea, alla costruzione delle forme.
Nella prima parte del corso verranno illustrati metodi avanzati di generazione delle superdici per una modellazione controllata delle FREE FORM. per arrivare a questa condizione sarà necessario approfondire i concetti di spazio parametrico monodimensionale (per la trasformazione lungo le curve) e spazio parametrico bidimensionale (per la trasformazione lungo le superfici).
Nella seconda parte del corso si insegneranno i metodi di esplicitazione degli algoritmi, applicati ad esercizi base utili alla comprensione di Grasshopper; poi la plug-in verrà specializzata affrontando editing, trasformazioni complesse e il problema della tassellazione delle superfici.Buona parte del tempo sarà dedicato alla costruzione di geometrie responsive e alla gestione del flusso dati per l'ottimizzazione del lavoro.…
he time to work with it.
the project is about facade strips which turns along height. the top angle is
parallel to the facade and the bottom is max. 90 degrees twisted, but the strips
should turn diffrently to achieve more dinamic look.
first i have tried to achieve this by calculating distance between the rotation angle from points of the grid and a single point.
then i have tried to ad some more effecting points and used the distance to the divided surface (the circles are just to control the area of effection):
i manually lofted it.
the result is a bit annoying becouse the points that effect the angle are always visible:
i have triend to solve this by drawing a line and divided it to recieve points along the bottom of the geometry. the result is not working properly:
Anyway,
there must be a better/smoother way to achieve this. i would like to effect the twist of the surfaces by distance to a spline, but im just lost. can you help me please?
the problems im encountering:
0- distance spline to grid to effect the angle
1- list of x/y coordinates and angle of rotation for each point of the grid
2- export points to excel
3- lofting lines in one direction only (x1, x2, x3...)
4- reduce the list data to 2 decimal (0,00)
5- maybe angle from radian to degrees
thx…
ucation Research Group in Urban Building Services at the Technical School of Architecture of Madrid (ETSAM), Spain.
The aim of the Research is to generate a digital support for sketching urban and architecture net systems and its interrelationships between them for academic researches.
IE Group Members:
-Sergio del Castillo Tello (Doctor No, Lead Programmer)
-Pablo Gómez Rodríguez (Programmer)
-Prof. Miguel Angel Gálvez
(Architect ETSAM, Building Services Department)
-Manuel Rodríguez Pérez
(Architect ETSAM, Building Services Department)
-Prof. Jose Tovar Larrucea
(Architect ETSAM, Building Services Department, Professor Ad Honorem)
The development of this tools, which are in its very early stage, is planned to take part within the Innovative Group Education research program; We expect to share the results with the community through this group as we achieve them, in case that some of you are interested, or if just want to get involved somehow. Cheers!
…
Added by Doctor No at 4:24am on September 30, 2013
egin working on a design, we first have to systematically examine the resources and restrictions which, on the one hand, make every design project possible and, on the other hand, also define and delimit it. Knowing what we have to work with enables us to explore its boundaries and at the same time to venture beyond those boundaries. This is our studio’s sphere of action; our projects emerge as a critical reflection of the discipline of architecture, in its essence, on fundamental concepts, their general form, and their underlying media and processes. The goal of our work is to master a variety of forms of the architectural repertoire of the 20th century, but especially to develop and expand this repertoire, as has been happening in the past 20 years. The goal of this workshop is to introduce a series of these techniques and expertises and to apply the knowledge transfer on a given site in Timisoara. GUESTS: STUDIO ZAHA HADID VIENNA: http://www1.uni-ak.ac.at/architektur/ https://www.facebook.com/StudioHadidVienna Ass. Dipl.-Ing.MArch. AA Dist. Robert NEUMAYR-BEELITZ - lecturer/critic http://www.unsquare.at/ AProf. Mag.arch. Mag.theol. Johannes TRAUPMANN - critic http://www.pxt.at/ Univ.-Ass. Dipl.-Ing. Jens Erik MEHLAN - critic http://moh-architecture.com/ Univ.Stud.Ass. Daniel BOLOJAN - tutor - Grasshopper http://nonstandardstudio.wordpress.com/ Univ.Stud.Ass. Bogdan ZAHA - tutor - Maya http://bogdanzaha.tumblr.com/ LOCAL: Prof.Dr.Arh.Urb.Conf. Florin MACHEDON - critic (BUC)
more information on https://encodedfields.wordpress.com/…