e matching with a dedicated component which creates combinations of items. You can find the [Cross Reference] component in the Sets.List panel.
When Grasshopper iterates over lists of items, it will match the first item in list A with the first item in list B. Then the second item in list A with the second item in list B and so on and so forth. Sometimes however you want all items in list A to combine with all items in list B, the [Cross Reference] component allows you to do this.
Here we have two input lists {A,B,C} and {X,Y,Z}. Normally Grasshopper would iterate over these lists and only consider the combinations {A,X}, {B,Y} and {C,Z}. There are however six more combinations that are not typically considered, to wit: {A,Y}, {A,Z}, {B,X}, {B,Z}, {C,X} and {C,Y}. As you can see the output of the [Cross Reference] component is such that all nine permutations are indeed present.
We can denote the behaviour of data cross referencing using a table. The rows represent the first list of items, the columns the second. If we create all possible permutations, the table will have a dot in every single cell, as every cell represents a unique combination of two source list indices:
Sometimes however you don't want all possible permutations. Sometimes you wish to exclude certain areas because they would result in meaningless or invalid computations. A common exclusion principle is to ignore all cells that are on the diagonal of the table. The image above shows a 'holistic' matching, whereas the 'diagonal' option (available from the [Cross Reference] component menu) has gaps for {0,0}, {1,1}, {2,2} and {3,3}:
If we apply this to our {A,B,C}, {X,Y,Z} example, we should expect to not see the combinations for {A,X}, {B,Y} and {C,Z}:
The rule that is applied to 'diagonal' matching is: "Skip all permutations where all items have the same list index". 'Coincident' matching is the same as 'diagonal' matching in the case of two input lists which is why I won't show an example of it here (since we are only dealing with 2-list examples), but the rule is subtly different: "Skip all permutations where any two items have the same list index".
The four remaining matching algorithms are all variations on the same theme. 'Lower triangle' matching applies the rule: "Skip all permutations where the index of an item is less than the index of the item in the next list", resulting in an empty triangle but with items on the diagonal.
'Lower triangle (strict)' matching goes one step further and also eliminates the items on the diagonal:
'Upper Triangle' and 'Upper Triangle (strict)' are mirror images of the previous two algorithms, resulting in empty triangles on the other side of the diagonal line:
…
it seems that was this. Now all is working fine !
Glad that it worked! But I am still a bit worried. Gismo components only modify the gdal-data/osmconf.ini file and no other MapWinGIS file. So your MapWinGIS installation files should not be compromised. The fact that you did not get the "COM CLSID" error message when running the "Gismo Gismo" component suggests that MapWinGIS has been properly installed. So I wonder if the cause for the permanent "invalid shapes" warning has again something with the fact that your system is again not allowing the MapWinGIS to properly edit the osmconf.ini. Maybe this problem will appear again, and again, and reinstallation of MapWinGIS every time can be somewhat bothersome.
- About the terrain generation, is it possible to have the texture from google or other provider mapped onto the terrain surface from gismo component ? (Same as using the ladybug terrain generator in fact). I try to used the image extracted by ladybug component and then applied it to the gismo terrain but the texture is rotated by 90°.
The issue with the rotation can be solved by swapping/reversing the U,V directions of the terrain surface. A slightly more important issue is that terrain surface generated with Gismo "Terrain Generator" component might have a bit smaller radius than what the radius_ input required. This stems from the fact that the terrain data first needs to be downloaded in geographic coordinate system, and then projected. Some projecting issues may occur at the very edges of the projected terrain, so I had to slightly cut out the very edges of the terrain which results in the actual terrain diameters being slightly shorted in both directions. This means that if you apply the same satellite image from Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component to Gismo "Terrain Generator" component the results may not be the same.I attached below a python component which tries to solve this issue by extending the edges of Gismo "Terrain Generator" terrain, and then cutting them with the cuboid of the exact dimensions as the radius_ input. Have in mind that this extension of the original terrain at its edges is not a correct representation of the actual terrain in that location. But rather just an extension of the isoparameteric curve of the terrain surface. So basically: some 0 to 10% (0 to 10 percent of the width and length) of the terrain around all four edges is not the actual terrain for that location, but rather just its extension.The python component is located at the very right of the definition attached below.
Also, if you would like to use the satellite images from Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component along with "OSM shapes", sometimes you may find slight differences in position of the shapes. This is due to openstreetmap data not being based on Google Maps (that's what Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component is using), but rather on Bing, MapQuest and a few others.
- About the requiredKeys_ input of OSM shapes, I understand what you mean and your advice, but in most cases I use it, the component was working fine even without input. I think it's better to extract all tags, values and keys of the selected area, instead of searching for specific ones as I try to find all data related to what I want after, isn't it ? To check what keys are present on the area also.
Ineed, you are correct.I though you were trying to only create a terrain, 3d buildings and maybe find some school or similar 3d building, for these two locations. The recommendation I mentioned previously is due to shapefiles having a limit (2044) to how many keys it can contain. This requires further testing of some big cities locations with maybe larger radii, which I haven't performed due to my poor PC configuration. But in theory, I imagine that it may happen that a downloaded .osm file may have more than 2044 keys. In that case shapefile will only record 2044 of them, and disregard the others. That was my point.But again 2044 is a lot of keys, and I haven't been checking much this in practice. For example, when I set the radius_ to 1000 meters, and use your "3 Rue de Bretonvilliers Paris" location I get around 350 something keys, which is way below the 2044.Another reason why one should use the requiredKeys_ input is to make the Gismo OSM components run quicker: for example, the upper mentioned 350 something keys will result in 350 values for each branch of the "OSM shapes" component's "values" output.Which means if you have 10 000 shapes, the "OSM shapes" component will have 10 000 branches with 350 items on each branch (values). This can make all Gismo OSM components very heavy, and significantly elongate the calculation process.With requiredKeys_ input you may end up with only a couple of tens of items per each branch.Sorry for the long reply.…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 8:57am on June 11, 2017
ating to new speakers.
For more information: https://medium.com/@carspeakerland/a-guide-to-the-simple-way-difference-in-car-speakers-2-way-3-way-4-way-25e0bf215b00
Adding new speakers for your automobile could improve the sound quality dramatically. Some sound technicians say it is the number-one update you may make to improve the overall quality of your vehicle.
"They do not care how it sounds. Speakers are often form of continue on the list. Updating to new speakers offers you a much fuller sound."
There is a whole lot to pick from in regards to car speakers. (Photo from Eldon Lindsay)
"New speakers will make a greater fidelity and clarity of sound," states Robert Nevitt, proprietor of Audio Electronics at Indianapolis. "The audio is more different without distortion. People will not get bored listening to it."
Cook says customers need to pick the type of sound they enjoy. The very first thing Cook does having a customer is sit in the car together to talk about their personal taste.
"Everybody's ear is different," he states. "That which I believe sounds great, you might believe is dreadful. It is a fantastic idea to get outside and listen to everything you enjoy and do not like about doing it."
When you've discovered a sound you want, you are going to discover the sky's actually the limitation in regards to purchasing car speakers. There are scores of manufactures and models, sizes and power levels to select from.
Columbus Car Audio & Accessories offers three types of automobile speakers to pick from: complete array speakers, component speakers along with coaxial speakers.
• Total range speakers arrive with a tweeter to make to your high-pitched sounds along with a woofer for those lows. This option offers a number of different sizes.
• Unit speakers, nonetheless, include separate tweeters and woofers.
• Coaxial speakers arrive with a tweeter plus motorist.
When you've selected a type of automobile speaker, you are going to want to determine how many you desire. Cook states some cars arrive with as little as just two speakers, whereas bigger, luxury vehicles might have too many 32. He adds a normal sedan generally has four. What are The Speaker Sizes in My Car | Speaker Size for My Car
"It simply depends if you would like to replace all of these," Cook says. "I would advise doing all of four. If you are budget-minded, I'd begin with the ones at the front. That is where you are at. And you are likely to be at the automobile 100 percent of their moment."
Subwoofers are designed to reproduce low bass frequencies also may be included with new speakers or could be added separately to existing car speakers.
"Many speakers can not play down low in these frequencies such as a subwoofer may," Cook says.
Related Article
Wondering about speakers? Below are a few techniques to establish a home entertainment experience whatever your budget.
A speaker update might charge as little as $100 up to a few million dollars depending on the scope of job and type of speaker.
Cook states that the price of a subwoofer can operate as low as $37. Columbus Car Audio & Accessories sells a subewoofer bundle that includes an amplifier and a enclosure for about $ 299.
To get a set of automobile speakers, Columbus Car Audio & Accessories begin prices at $39, with an average price tag of about $70 for setup. Adding an anti-vibrator into a set of speakers prices an additional $25.
Nevitt, meanwhile, fees as little as $99 to get a set of "some good speakers." The price of one hour of installion, that is typically how long it takes to put in a set of speakers, is 67.
However, most customers spend far more.
"Paying a total amount of 800 to $1000 isn't from this world of possibility," Nevitt states. "A price somewhere in the center could be $400 or $500."
Cook says several vehicle speaker technicians began with DIY projects and adds there is nothing wrong with trying to set up car speakers all on your own. But you are going to want the correct tools for your job along with just a little understand. Installing speakers requires carrying out your car door.
See Also: https://www.scoop.it/t/how-to-choose-best-car-speakers-6x9-inch-6-5-inch-6x8-inch-4-inch
Choosing a professional to set up speakers ensures that the job is done correctly.
"If you do it yourself, then you might wind up breaking something. That is some thing we do everyday. I am not planning to inform you we will not violate something. But we will look after it if we perform. We all do so with being honest and up front with people."
If you are getting speakers set up, experts say to expect to place an appointment to the setup. …
DP ($$$ aside), GC, and Grasshopper. Arthur’s original question is very important
and the exact question (and hopefully answer) I was hoping to find on a
forum.
“How to take intelligent 3D parametric generative design models (scripting, etc.) into 2D documents?" Or, deliver the 3D design for evaluation, bid, construction, etc.
I am intrigued by Jon’s comments in the same thread and would like to know how I can learn more about the process (and
pitfalls) of turning over a 3D digital generative models to a contractor/fabricator.
Are there any industry guidelines established I could use as a reference to guide our firm through this type of uncharted territory?
Arthur’s question is very reminiscent of 10 years ago when I was frustrated with the amount of time spent on the development of a 3D model design (physical and/or virtual) only to have to wipe the table clean and start the process all over again in 2D in order to document the project for delivery. From this I jumped head first into BIM and Revit, vowing never to go back to unintelligent 2D line work. I am now working on Bentley software (v8i: Microstation and Bentley Architecture) with the access and desire to venture into Generative Components. I am very intrigued by Rhino/Grasshopper primarily with the apparent ease of use and available resources assisting in the learning process – something not really available with Bentley.
In hindsight, as I am doing my software research I think the current use of Revit and BA (Bentley Architecture) are more of a “bridge”
between the past (decades of digital 2D work, i.e. AutoCAD) and where hopefully
we all will be someday in the near future (100% 3D modeling, i.e. Digital
Project??). Without having the experience
it would appear that DP/CATIA (PLM software) are closer to this than any other
type of software. As complicated as the
industry standards are for the automobile and airline industry, I feel we
(architectural industry and others) are heading in a similar direction with
total understanding (PLM/ Evidence Based Design) of a design (a whole other topic). If anything I think the market will begin to
demand it sooner or later.
Gehry (DP) article NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/11/business/11gehry.html
I know these type of broad discussions (software vs. software) can be blown out of proportion on forums, but I am would like to read
the pulse of those who are already in the trenches (using Grasshopper, CATIA, Digital Project, Generative Components, others??) and hear your thoughts. Just as valuable would be other threads,
industry articles/reviews of 3D parametric generative design software.
Thanks,
Boyd…
greatly appreciate it!!
You can write the number of the question and write your answer next to it, example:
1) a
2) c
3) a) Washington University in St. Louis
4) 2 weeks (1week+1week shipping)
5) 130
6) b
7) b
The survey questions are as follows:
1)
Did you 3D print before?
5)
How much did it cost (in dollars)?
a.
Yes, for a school project
a.
Between 20 & 50
b.
Yes, for a personal project
b.
Between 50 & 80
c.
Between 80 & 120
2)
Print size
d.
Please specify if otherwise: _____ dollars
a.
Between 2 & 6 cubic inches
b.
Between 6 & 12 cubic inches
6)
Do you think the price was expensive?
c.
Between 12 & 20 cubic inches
a.
Not at all
d.
Please specify if otherwise: ____cubic inches
b.
A little bit expensive
c.
Very expensive
3)
Where did you print your object?
a.
School
7)
Were you satisfied with the printed object?
b.
Outside school: _________________
a.
Yes, it was a great print without problems
b.
Not bad, some issues
4)
How long did it take to print?
c.
I was not satisfied, very bad quality
a.
___ days
b.
___ weeks
Thank you very much to all!!
PS: If you did many 3D prints, you can post multiple answers.
Wassef…
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
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.
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.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
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.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011
ting at multiple geometries in the same location. I simply sorted the list of values and used the Delete Consecutive component. This potentially rearranges the order of values but I don't think that matters in your case. I also threw in an Int component which actually seems to make a difference (try sidestepping it and you will see!).
2-I flattened the output of the mesh component before sending it to union. This ensures that the original mesh is booleaned once with all the components rather than individually with each of the 86 components.
Is this what the result should look like?
One suggestion for future postings: when referencing geometry in rhino, it often helps if you attach your rhino file as well so people don't have to guess where you are starting from.
If you have further questions, just ask ;-)
cbass…
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