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
d the fact that one pipe goes out and one goes in, that the surface normal direction is opposite for the two surfaces? Based on an earlier thread, you should know why by now. The two curves have opposite directions (again!); see the white arrows using Rhino 'Analyze | Direction'?
As before, you can fix that by flipping one curve to match the other. HOWEVER, you connected your curves directly to the 'Divide' components instead of using 'Crv' geometry params - bad form. And as before, you "fixed it" by reversing the list of starting points ('S' input to 'BiArc'). Better like this - 'Crv' params are internalized, no need for Rhino file:
Well, well! That didn't fix the opposite surface normals after all! Trust me, though, using geometry params and being conscious about matching curve directions is "best practice". But I haven't lofted 'BiArc' curves for awhile, it's late and I want to move on. OH! I just noticed that you reversed the 'Z' direction for one half of the 'BiArc' - that explains it:
Moving on... You've basically got it, though I would do it differently - same result, like this:
I haven't really explained surface normal vectors - can you figure it out from here? One more little wrinkle (Normal_2017Mar17b.gh):
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 12:03am on March 18, 2017
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 Karamba however advanced users are also encouraged to apply. It is open to both professional and academic users.
Course Fee:
Professional EUR 750 (+VAT)
Educational EUR 375 (+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 Karamba 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.
Karamba ½ year licenses for non-commercial use will be provided to all participants.
…
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 Karamba however advanced users are also encouraged to apply. It is open to both professional and academic users.
Course Fee:
Professional EUR 750 (+VAT)
Student EUR 375 (+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 October 15th.
The workshop will be taught in English. Basic Rhino and Grasshopper knowledge is recommended. No knowledge of Karamba 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.
Karamba ½ year licenses for non-commercial use will be provided to all participants.
…
ive 'correct' normal.
Non-normalized cross products is effectively weighting face normals by area, and is fast and simple, so we put that one as the default.
In some cases normalizing the cross-products improves the result, but not always.
Another option is to weight by angles, though this is computationally slightly more expensive, so might not be ideal for real-time updates on large meshes.
As an example, here is a mesh with a 90° corner, and uneven meshing on the 2 sides.
The arrows show:
0- Area weighted (non-normalized cross products)
1- Angle weighted
2- Normalized cross-products
Here the angle-weighted normal is the one at 45°, which is intuitively the 'best' one in this case.
These 3 seem to be the most commonly used, but there are many other possible definitions of normals - such as inverse-area weighted, mean curvature, etc...
I think really what would be best would be to put a few of these into Plankton, and include an optional argument in GetNormal for selecting which one you need for a particular application.
Pull requests welcome if you feel inspired to add this!
http://meshlabstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/on-computation-of-vertex-normals.html
http://steve.hollasch.net/cgindex/geometry/surfnorm.html…
us allows Grasshopper authors to stream geometry to the web in real time. It works like a chatroom for parametric geometry, and allows for on-the-fly 3D model mashups in the web browser. Multiple [Grasshopper] authors can stream geometry into a shared 3D environment on the web – a Platypus Session – and multiple viewers can join that session on 3dplatyp.us to interact with the 3D model. Platypus can be used to present parametric 3D models to a remote audience, to quickly collaborate with other Grasshopper users, or both!
You can down load the Grasshopper plugin at food4rhino, and visit 3dplatyp.us to view your geometry on the web. This first round of Alpha testing will run for two weeks, until April 24 2014, after which the Grasshopper components will not solve.
We are very interested in hearing feedback from the community while the project is still in the prototyping stages of development. Please use the comments on this discussion to ask questions, suggest ideas, report bugs, etc. We are planning on rolling out another public alpha release or two this Spring, depending on how this first one goes, in advance of our Technology Symposium and Hackathon in New York.
Check out our getting started video below, and enjoy!
…
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