been written about it and I manage to get both of them started with this:
(VB.NET)
Public Class Form1
Private Sub Button1_Click(sender As Object, e As EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click Dim doc1 As String = "C:\Users\Xavier\Desktop\Test_GH\Test à changer.gh" Dim type As Type = Type.GetTypeFromProgID("Rhino5x64.Application", True)
'Start Rhino
Dim rhinocomobj As Object = Activator.CreateInstance(type) rhinocomobj.visible = True While rhinocomobj.IsInitialized() = 0 Threading.Thread.Sleep(100) End While
'Start GH and open a file
rhinocomobj.RunScript("_Grasshopper", 0) Dim gh As Object = rhinocomobj.GetPlugInObject("b45a29b1-4343-4035-989e-044e8580d9cf", "00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000") gh.OpenDocument(doc1)
From what I understood, this creates a separated COM object, but I don't know how I can manipulate it. For example, how can I get the RhinoDoc, the GH Document and so on?
I tried :
Dim RhinoDocument as RhinoDoc = RhinoDoc.ActiveDoc
but this throws an exception "System.dllNotFoundException" about RhinoCommon.dll, despite RhinoCommon.dll has been set as a Reference of the Project.
I tried as well to build a new class which sits inside GH (DLL as a reference + GHA inside GH library) as per David's suggestion: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/call-gh-from-c-code, and to access properties but I still get the same "DLL Not Found" exception whenever I use GH commands through this tailor made class.
At last, I tried using RhinoScript Interface through commands like :
gh.AssignDataToParameter, but this doesn't change the value, this doesn't throw any exception neither.
I would like to get full access in order to change parameters from a GH document, output geometries and DWG files, and so on.
I don't know if I am being really clear but any help would be really appreciated.
Thanks!
…
rves/holes. However, the Kangaroo script itself is prone to locking up so it seems like it might take forever. You can even double click stop the timer from the Windows task bar, I hadn't noticed that before:
You have to use that or right click disable the timer since even with the Reset toggle button input set to True the timer itself locks up the script a bit when you are changing things around.
Just setting the min/max numbers both to a desired mesh size gives a uniform mesh:
Oh weird, it's about if the timer is right click set to so small an interval that it gets ahead of Kangaroo! When you see how long each cycle is taking with the Display > Canvas Widgets > Profiler you just set the timer for above that and the interface comes back into being responsive. It only takes a few Kangaroo cycles to do the inflation, so a full second timer interval is even workable.
A finer mesh:
It's funny running it so slow since it overinflates at first, bulging out, before it equilibrates.
You have control over inflation pressure and mesh stiffness, for a variety of effects.
This is a good system once I realized the timer needed to be mellowed out.
What made it work was the fast custom meshing since a normal mesh is awful and MeshMachine wouldn't work with sharp corner holes at all, breaking out of the boundary even if I fixed curves or vertices or did the equivalent with NURBS surfaces instead of a starting mesh.
There is an initiation time for Kangaroo that doesn't show up on its Profiler time that happens even with the timer off.
There are some fine areas that can't inflate with a reasonable mesh setting:
Worth playing with but no match for ArtCAM since it suffers odd delays in between working fast. If I could get better 2D meshes, that were more adaptive it would be better, but MeshMachine is one of the only re-meshers I know and it's broken for even mildly sharp hole features.
Ah, how about a crude mesh that is then subdivided, guaranteeing inner vertices everywhere? Sort of works, but is still too dense. Way too dense to even do anything. The subdivision triangulates the quads, vastly increasing the mesh wire density. Better just to make a finer initial mesh with plenty of quads.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 12:57am on February 21, 2016
(1) I have been exporting small sections of a larger model into Maya from Rhino as FBX. In Maya I rotate and scale the models (-90 in X, Scale XYZ 0.001). The Named Views are being saved, but do not have a successful import into the Maya model. They do not appear as in Rhino, and the problem is not solved by scaling or rotating the cameras.
(2) If I try going the other direction, the cameras exported from Maya as FBX are also not aligning with the model in Rhino as they are in Maya.. I will do my best to post some images of the problem and hope you can help.
error !!
This is what the named views look like
here I am trying to the other way with a good view from Maya
strange placement..
This is the best result I can achieve, after I scale the camera by 1000
Any Advice???
Thanks, Robert.
…
ysim.ning.com/
When you run the simualtion you will notice on the batch terminal that Daysim is also being called, so you may want to consider how Daysim uses Radiance files & data.
Regarding your current problem, I think you stumbled onto something weird and interesting.
Interior and exterior readings appear to differ by 40 in the best case scenarios. Even setting the transmittance to 1 yields similar results. I tried changing from cummulative sky to climate sky and got similar values. Changing the test points did nothing either.
I think, (yet I'm too lazy to prove this) that the difference in values stems from diffuse radiation over the sky dome.
If you delete everything except the glass you'll notice that interior values are like 80-90% of the exterior values (this seems like the expected behaviour with a transmittance of 1). So, if we consider that a vertical window, part of an opaque box, is receiving radiation from 25% of a sphere, as you start to inset the interior test points the radiation they receive will be a fraction of the 25%.
Let me try to explain this better...The exterior surface receives radiation from a section of a sphere calculated by 180degrees on the xy plane (let’s call this angle theta) and by 90degrees (let’s call this angle phi) in azimuthal elevation. If you integrate this over spherical coordinates (theta from 0 to pi; phi from 0 to pi/2) you will find that it comes to a quarter of a sphere. By comparison, the interior surface will not integrate theta from 0 to 180degrees,nor phi from 0 to 90degrees, instead it will be the subtended angle from the exterior surface as a function of their separation; the farther in you go the smaller the view of the outside.
If my hypothesis is correct there shouldn't be that much difference since the separation is only 10cms...the subtended angle would be like 170 instead of 180 for theta and 85 instead of 90 for phi...overall if you integrate both spherical areas there should only by a difference of 10%.
In conclusion, I believe the unexpected behaviour stems from the previous subtended angle thing. If direct radiation was the only factor the difference would be the aforementioned 10%, which suggests that an additional source of energy is also affected by this. Perhaps indirect and diffuse radiation from other areas of the sky dome.
I’m definitely intrigued on why this is happening. Please post if you figure it out.
Regards,
Mauricio
…
TB of RAM. I think I'm going to start a GoFundMe campaign to buy one for myself :)
2- The server's cost is about $13 an hour. I get free access to supercomputer through my university and xsede.org because I earned an NSF Honorable mention last March, however, the supercomputers available through both resources are a little complicated for me to use, as opposed to the one available from amazon that has Microsoft server 2012 already installed.
3- I wanted to run 400 annual glare simulations for 400 different views.
4- I tried a to perform annual glare simulation for one view on my Dell XPS that has Intel Core i7-6700HQ processor and 16GB of system memory. The simulation took 2 hours to complete. Radiance parameter ab was set to 6.
5- I wanted to obtain the batch file for each view so I can run them on the server. So I used the fly component to run all 400 simulations and closed the cmd windows, that wasn't bad ( for me at least) because I asked my son to this job for me, he was just glad to help me :)
6- I created one batch file using this cmd command:
dir /s /b *.bat > runall.bat
This created a file with the path to each .bat file. I edited this file in Notepad++ to include the word "start" at the beginning of each line. This was done using the "find and replace" dialogue box.
7- I split my newly created batch file into 3 batch files, each one has about 130 file names and " start" before the file names.
8- installed radiance on my server
9- Ran the first batch file on the server, this started 130 cmd windows performing my simulations, CPU usage was anywhere between 90% to 100% and about 105 GB of RAMs were used.
10. It took about 5 hours to complete all 130 simulations, I expected to run all in 2 hours but can't complain because this would've taken about 260 hours to run on my laptop. After the simulations done I ran the second and then the third batch files ( total of about 15 hours).
11. I got 400 valid dgb files. Couldn't be happier!
…
azione parametrica e generativa attraverso Grasshopper, plug-in di programmazione visuale per Rhinoceros 3D (uno dei più diffusi modellatori NURBS per l‘architettura e il design). Il workshop mira a gestire e sviluppare il rapporto tra informazione e geometria lavorando sui sistemi ad involucro in condizioni specifiche.La discretizzazione di superfici (pannellizazione Nurbs o Mesh), la modellazione delle geometrie attraverso informazioni (siano esse provenienti da analisi ambientali, mappe o database) e l’estrazione e la gestione di queste informazioni, richiede la comprensione di strutture di dati al fine di gestire completamente processo che va dalla progettazione alla costruzione.I partecipanti impareranno come costruire e sviluppare strutture di dati parametrici per informare geometrie ‘data-driven’ e come estrarre le informazioni rilevanti da tali modelli per il processo di costruzione.
Modulo 2 – Il workshop, volto a promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e alla fabbricazione, esplorerà l’integrazione tra design e prototipazione tramite processi di stampa 3d di materiale ceramico al fine di comprenderne allo stesso tempo sia il comportamento del materiale che i vincoli e le opportunità offerte dall’utilizzo di tali tecnologie.Infatti utilizzando grasshopper ed una macchina a controllo numerico i partecipanti apprenderanno le modalità per la generazione parametrica dei modelli e la creazione del codice per la loro prototipazione (Gcode creato direttamente in Grasshopper). Il workshop darà quindi ai partecipanti la possibilità di testare direttamente i loro elaborati digitali stampandoli in modo da comprendere come le informazioni articolate tramite tali strumenti di design producano specifici effetti sia morfologici che estetici.…
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