closest point to the very first would be removed from the list, so the initial list reduces from 100 to 98. From the 98 i pick one and search the remaining 97 for the closest. From the remaining 96 i pick again one and search in the 95,...
(The product I want to result is:
having a number of random lines in 3D space, produced by an even number of points as discribed, this shall be the initial springs for a ("selfadjusting") tensegrity. Each one of these lines (later springs in kangaroo) get divided in three areas - that means four points. These four points again are the "attractor points" of neighbor springs, so the strut "knows" where to set the next elastic connection,...the rest I´ll have to figure out)
angelos…
pe and its surface.
However, I don't have that much knowledge about both grasshopper and Mathematica.. I mean I can only make assumptions and think about relations of certain functions but that's all.
If you can help me on this, I would appreciate it so much.
You can see a screenshot of the code and model of the demonstration from mathematica in attachment.
And here is the mathematica code;
Manipulate[ Module[{\[CurlyEpsilon] = 10^-6, c1 = Tan[a1], c2 = Tan[a2], c3 = Tan[a3], c4 = Tan[a4], c5 = Tan[a5], c6 = Tan[a6]}, ContourPlot3D[ Evaluate[ c6 Sin[3 x] Sin[2 y] Sin[z] + c4 Sin[2 x] Sin[3 y] Sin[z] + c5 Sin[3 x] Sin[y] Sin[2 z] + c2 Sin[x] Sin[3 y] Sin[2 z] + c3 Sin[2 x] Sin[y] Sin[3 z] + c1 Sin[x] Sin[2 y] Sin[3 z] == 0], {x, \[CurlyEpsilon], Pi - \[CurlyEpsilon]}, {y, \[CurlyEpsilon], Pi - \[CurlyEpsilon]}, {z, \[CurlyEpsilon], Pi - \[CurlyEpsilon]}, Mesh -> False, ImageSize -> {400, 400}, Boxed -> False, Axes -> False, NormalsFunction -> "Average", PlotPoints -> ControlActive[10, 30], PerformanceGoal -> "Speed"]], {{a1, 1, "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(\[Alpha]\), \(1\)]\)"}, -Pi/2 - 0.01, Pi/2 + 0.01, ImageSize -> Tiny}, {{a2, 1, "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(\[Alpha]\), \(2\)]\)"}, -Pi/2 - 0.01, Pi/2 + 0.01, ImageSize -> Tiny}, {{a3, 1, "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(\[Alpha]\), \(3\)]\)"}, -Pi/2 - 0.01, Pi/2 + 0.01, ImageSize -> Tiny}, {{a4, 1, "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(\[Alpha]\), \(4\)]\)"}, -Pi/2 - 0.01, Pi/2 + 0.01, ImageSize -> Tiny}, {{a5, 1, "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(\[Alpha]\), \(5\)]\)"}, -Pi/2 - 0.01, Pi/2 + 0.01, ImageSize -> Tiny}, {{a6, 1, "\!\(\*SubscriptBox[\(\[Alpha]\), \(6\)]\)"}, -Pi/2 - 0.01, Pi/2 + 0.01, ImageSize -> Tiny}, AutorunSequencing -> {1, 3, 5}, ControlPlacement -> Left]…
gone with the wind topic: since this is utterly Academic the main issue here is to oversimplify LBS (in real life: a collection of columns/beams/slabs/X members + tube frame rigid members (shafts/elevators/cats/dogs)). Reason is that if we use the real "solids" (turned into meshes) as the "node" pool for the hinges required ... only HAL 9000 could solve it in "real-time" (for instance an E5 Xeon 1630 v3 takes ... several minutes). And this is ... er ... challenging I must say. This is a typical case where "simplifying" means "stupidity" almost instantly.
Spam on:
where's my collection of "bend-a-truss-that-looks-like-a-tower" K1 demo defs? Is in this workstation or in another? (blame Alzheimer).
Spam off.
More soon.…