essors. And their counter-attitude is not made because of some real reasons - it's just some kind of fear, that time will overrun them and that they will become useless in comparison to the new generation of "computer architects". That is why they are giving false replies on this subject you mentioned: about boring and soulless architecture.
But! I also need to agree that you can not be an architect if you can not draw that by hand, also and imagine the object and it's parts in 3d, in your head, without even using the 3d model from PC application.
I used to draw around 80% of all my projects on university during studies, by hand! And that part helped a lot, and gave me pretty decent base for usage of PC applications later. Drawing by hand develops a bit investigating spirit, and enables you to think about the shape, the way it looks, and the way it will look.Even today, I first do a dozen number of sketches and drawings, before going onto the drawing on PC.The same goes related to some details, that I am already drawing on PC - sometimes I feel it much more comfortable to solve them by hand, and then draw back to PC.
So my opinion on this is a bit mixed - I think that an architect needs to have a solid basis in hand drawing, in order to become a better architect. But I also think that using technology in process of creating architecture is inevitable and reasons for not using it, are pointless.
Just my two cents on this issue.…
Added by djordje to Hiteca at 4:22am on August 7, 2012
bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Matrix transforms and persistent constraints: I don't think this is true. The parts can have mates to other parts that preserve geometric relationships like 'coincident' , 'aligned' etc. These are essentially bi-directional. GH's algorithmic approach does not do relationships in the same / flexible way. In GH, the 'relationship' has to be part of the generation method that dependent on the creation sequence. I.e. draw line 2 perpendicularly from the end of point of line 1. If you are thinking about parts or assemblies sharing, or referencing parameters as part of the regen process, this is also possible. iLogic does this, and adds scripting. So does Catia. Inventor/iLogic can also access Excel and have all the parameter processing done centrally, if required.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
I wouldn't be too hasty here. Yes, you are right about compartmentalisation. I think this needs to happen with GH, in order to deal with scalability/everyday interoperability requirements. Confining projects to one script is not sustainable. MCAD apps have been doing this for ages with 'Relational Modeling'.The Adaptive Components placement example illustrates that it is beneficial to be able to script some 'hints' that can be used on placement of the component. Say, if your component requires points as inputs, then its should be able to find the nearest points to the cursor as it moves around. I think Aish's D# / DesignScript demo'd this kind of behaviour a few years ago. Similarly, Modo Toolpipe reminds me how a lot of UI based transactions can be captured as scripts (macro recorder etc). Allowing this input to be mixed in and/or extended by GH I think will yield a lot of 'modeling efficiency' around the edges. This is a (mis)using GH as an user-programmable 'jig' for placing/manipulating 'dumb' elements in Rhino. It may even give the 'dumb elements' a bit more 'intelligence' by leaving behind embedded attributes, like links to particular construction planes etc.Even if we confine ourselves to scripting. GH is a visual or graphic programming interface. A lot of 'insert and connect' tasks can be done more easily using graphic methods. If we need to select certain vertices on a mesh as inputs for, say, a facade panel, its going to be quicker to do this 'graphically' (like the AC example), then ferreting out the relevant indices in the data tree et al. The 'facade panel' script would then have some coding to filter/prompt the user as to what inputs were acceptable, and so on.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
Not sure what you mean here. If the i-parts are built up using sketches /profiles or other more rudimentary features (like Revits' profile/face etc family templates) then reuse should be fairly straight forward. I suppose you could make it like GH scripting, if you cut and paste or include script snippets that generate the desired Inventor features.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
I don't think this is true. Look at the automotive body design apps, which are mostly Catia based. All of the body parts are pretty much 'generative' and generated from splines, in a procedural way, using very similar approaches to GH. Or sheet metal design. It's not always about configuration of off-the-shelf items like bolts. And, the constraints manager is available to arbitrate which bit of script fires first, and your mundane workaday associative dimensions etc can update without getting run over by the DAG(s) :-)
…
ou will see all of the available components on a ribbon at once so there is no need to keep clicking drop down menus.
It's all about discoverability with GH. What if you're a beginner and don't know about the Create Facility (dbl click canvas) how can you find Extr?
Even if you hover over every component or use the drop down lists you will not see the name Extr appear anywhere.
Sure it makes sense that Extr is short for Extrude but it's also the Nick Name of Extrude to Point component
So you can easily miss the fact that one has a Distance Input verses a Point Input.
I think I made the move to Icons around about the move from version 0.5 to 0.6, possibly before. I initially thought that I would go back to text because I loved the mono chromatic look of the text but I soon realised that Icons were the way forward. The greatest benefit is speed. You don't need to digest and decipher every component (which is written 90 degrees to the norm).
I'm not saying you should move to Icons forthwith but at least consider that once you have a better knowledge and understanding of GH, Icons will set you free.
My top ten tips that I would highly recommend to anyone wanting to better themselves with GH.
1) Turn on Draw Icons
2) Turn on Draw Fancy Wires
3) Turn on Obscure Components
4) Use the Create Facility like a Command Line eg "Slider=-1<0.75<2" or "Shiftlist=-1"
5) Use Component Aliases to customise your use of the Create Facility eg giving the Point XYZ component an alias of XYZ will bring it up as the first option on the Create Facility as opposed to the other possibilities.
6) Try to answer other people's questions even if it's not relevant to your own area. By looking into solving a problem outside of your comfort zone and then posting your results it is very rewarding but it also lets you see the other approaches that get posted in a new light.
7) Take the time to understand Data/Path structures.
8) Buy a second monitor - There is nothing that can compare to real estate when working in Grasshopper.
9) Read Rajaa Issa's Essential Mathematics
10) Pick a panel in a tab on the ribbon and get to know every component inside and out and then move on. Start with the Sets Tab > List Panel…
s and robotic fabrication technologies in constructing them. It features a range of work from well known progressive practices, such as Zaha Hadid Architects, Greg Lynn Form, UN Studio, Contemporary Architectural Practice and Evan Douglis Studio, together with emerging experimental practices, such SPAN, Biothing, Kokkugia, Rubedo and Synthesis, along with some talented emerging Chinese architects, such as Archi-Union Studio and HHD_Fun, and student work from leading schools of architecture, including AA, Harvard GSD, MIT, RMIT, UPenn, Columbia GSAPP, DIA, USC, CAFA and Tongji. The exhibition also includes work from the AAC DigitalFUTURE collaborative workshop between Tongji University and USC. The exhibition is curated by Neil Leach (USC) and Philip Yuan (Tongji), and designed by Kris Mun (USC). It is open weekdays until 15 September. Image: 'Digital Merzbau, designed by SCUT students, Lin Rungu and Zhang Mei, tutored by Neil Leach (USC).''
…
on Air.
Curated by Gil Akos, Evan Greenberg, and Ronnie Parsons, these lectures aim to interrogate three main lines of inquiry--material systems, natural systems, and machanic systems. Each esteemed presenter will discuss how designers can approach problems through the lens of Embedded Intelligence in practice, research, and academia. There will be an in-person audience at the Architectural Association in London and a recording of the series will be available on-demand through the AA's online lecture video catalog.
The first lecture, Biological Intelligence, will take place on February 3 and will feature The Living's David Benjamin. Winner of the MoMA PS1 Young Architects Program, Benjamin has created paradigm-shifting projects such as Living Light, an interactive canopy in Seoul that reacts to air quality, and Amphibious Architecture, a project which expresses pollution levels in the Hudson River.
Future lectures will be given by Michael Winestock of the Architectural Association and Skylar Tibbits of the Self-Assembly Lab at MIT.
…
ing to download your examples but it sends me to the code instead ( I only able to download the rhino files but not the gh) , I just installed the plug in and have been playing with vortex component but not enough control yet, I would like to have water velocity continuity along the river and generate vortex when the field find and obstacle such a pier attach to the river bank.
1.-I am thinking on having 2 lines ( river banks) as input and generator the vector field
2.-Different curves ( polygons) along the river attach to the river bank that create the vortex ( this ones could also be define by the centre of the actual pier as point with certain radius of action.
3.-And finally the z value of the vortex should decrease along the z axis ( surface water vortex bigger,) as tornado
I would like to be able to set points and create or modify the vector field positioning this vortex that its position also should be related with its strength ( as closer to river bank as bigger the force of rotation)
I would appreciate if you can address me to some tutorials related or suggest the workflow
many thanks! …