te some implications and questions so I will go one by one:
"Now I would like to use a single VRay material as a template for creating multiple identical materials"I hope this will work, but as VRay does not expose any SDK, I would not guarantee any specific result.
"Now I need to add them to the document material table"This is done with a reference to a document instance, such as the one you get with the code doc.Materials (both in C# and Vb.Net).
"I'm not going to learn C# to modify his script"That's a pity, it would be nice to pass on this troublemaker to somebody else! :)Btw, C# and Vb.Net are very very similar. This script could be written in Vb.Net too.
"Reference to a non-shared member requires an object reference. (line 96)"This only means that you need to access the Materials property on an instance, not on the type (class) name. Change that line using what is written at point 2.
"Do I understand that the material has to be assigned to a particular object in order to enter the Material Table?"No it does not. But if you call the _Purge command it will be removed if it does not have an object that references it.
"Can I assign it to a Layer instead?"You do not need to. But this would be achieved with doc.Layers[whichLayer].RenderMaterialIndex = materialIndex; in C# or doc.Layers(whichLayer).RenderMaterialIndex = materialIndex in Vb.Net.
"Any ideas? A better way to do this?"If you found a way to bypass the VRay SDK not being there, this should work.
"Giulio's component has a type hint defined as a Material"It does not any longer. The hint was there in earlier versions of Grasshopper, but now the hint has disappeared. This is not so bad, and it is also the only way you would be able to use either a Material instance already or a string for a material name.
"How was that done?"Probably it was done in an older version of Grasshopper. But which version are you using?
"I can't figure out how to cast the input as a Rhino.DocObjects.Material, so you can see that I have cast it as a compatible type in the first 2 lines... is there a cleaner way?"That sounds like a good way actually. Be sure your component responds properly when something wrong is inputted, though.Dim mTemp As Rhino.DocObjects.Material = CType(M, Rhino.DocObjects.Material)in one line might also work. See msdn for more conversion operators and functions.
I hope this helps,
- Giulio_______________giulio@mcneel.com…
are invisible in the picture.
So what you see it's a common band that has lost all those characteristics of the original in order to protect the process.
We also did an "invisible setting" prototype which has built in Flexibility.
If you are in the jewelry industry you would know what I mean and it is close to a miracle.
It's a shame I can not share details and this is why I am planning my next major work on something 10 times more complex then this, at least.
It's will be for my own business and for the jewelry industry as well.
I hate to tease people and then not to be able to produce anything more than an image.
But I thought it would be better than nothing, at least for jeweler designers, so they can see that there are more and more users and that complexity it is not something to shy away from, and it's worth the time spent because the returns on production are far larger than for special orders and this is why GH is useful.
We can design a piece of jewelry usually in less then 1 hour, hence GH is not really worth the time.
But for production with so many variables (Finger sizes controlling most of the outcome together with stone sizes etc.) then GH it's a MUST!
I really appreciate everyone's comments and suspicions and I understand why.
99% of the people out there do not really understand the complexity of jewelry at the industrial level. It' s not just form but the post-production that's the killer.
This industry it's still an hybrid of technology and art with, and due to the lack of the old school pros, unfortunately, we face very lousy and unpredictable execution in the post production (after the casting process). This leaves you with a design process and intention that requires a lot of control over every possible variant of the object.
One wrong design aspect it's multiplied thousands of times at the benches (for every single piece) = bad profits!
It sound more serious that it is but very few companies are willing to do so (delivering good product vs low quality and this also happens because the consumer is not longer aware of the difference. So, who does keep quality, it's only because of integrity, third party QA or just pride).
This is way GH is invaluable. This is why that Def looks like out of proportion for that (Visual) simple band.
It is because there are dozens and dozens of variable effecting everything else. In fact it is not even complete as it is in order to cover everything but the most critical ones.
Sorry for the long replays. I am an instructor and a professional jeweler by trade since I was very young and I love to teach, so I overflow with explanations... and Components :)).
Next time it will be "in the open" as they say...…
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
lts.
In the visualization, points is an interesting option. It's a matter of aesthetics I guess, I go with surfaces :) Also what you can try is selecting Filters -> Slice (you can also find it in the icons above the pipeline viewer), in the Slice options below the pipeline press Z normal and on the Z coordinate press some height relevant to the buildings (e.g. 1.75m a typical human scale). That would show you the flow around the buildings on that height. Experiment with selecting other normals and values. Keep playing with the filters there's some cool things in there. Also you can check out the mailing list and extensive paraview documentation.
Concerning the errors I apologize because I just downloaded your case.
It appears that the decomposeParDict is not included in the system folder. I am not sure if this is due to BF not going through the whole workflow yet or an ommission on our side. Please feel free to add it in Github. I will also note it down and pass it to Mostaph to check. In the meantime please find attached a VERY detailed decomposeParDict file. I took the liberty to set it at 4 processors (the numberOfSubDomains value) and also selected (that is uncommented) the scotch decomposition method. It's the easiest method to use since it is automatic and doesn't require any more inputs on how the domain is decomposed on the x,y,z directions (which would require you to change values in the attached file).
Now, the different folders created are simply snapshots of the current solution at the specific timestep. To control how often the solver is saving change the writeInterval number in the controlDict file. You can also change almost all these values on the fly, while OF is running.
Finally, concerning the other errors of parafoam it seems somehow parafoam is reading the intial condition names instead of actual results from the solution files and it doesn't like it.
Does this happen only when you open the case (i.e. at 0 time) or does it also happen when you move to an other timestep?
Also, are you using paraFoam, paraview or the paraFoam -builtin method?
The extension of the paraFoam file seems to be .foam which means you are probably using the built in viewer. That might be the issue but I'm not sure.
Can you try running paraview, navigate to your case folder, open the .foam file and see if there is still an error?
Also, if it isn't much trouble can you zip one of the time folders and attach it here? I'd like to take a look at what's inside to check against what the error report says.
Once again thanks for testing!
Kind regards,
Theodore.…
rce of power.
A fortified emplacement for heavy guns.
Synonyms
accumulator
And use component:
com·po·nent
/kəmˈpōnənt/
Noun
A part or element of a larger whole, esp. a part of a machine or vehicle.
Adjective
Constituting part of a larger whole; constituent.
Synonyms
noun.
constituent - element - ingredient - part
adjective.
constituent - constitutive
…
n to finding a concave contour polyline (which is in general what you need). In your case each contour section contains a series of points of which you do not know the order and you need to sort them so that by connecting them you find the contour. This is fairly easy to do when the contour is convex (basically you find the average point then calculate the vectors from the average to the points and sort the vectors by angle - sorting the points by the same angle gives you the right order for the contour), but generally impossible to find uniquely when the contour is concave (PS: convex means that, for ANY 2 points inside the figure, a straight line connecting them doesn't intersect with the border curve - i.e. circles, ellipses, rectangles, triangles - concave shapes are a star, a crescent moon, an arrow, a boomerang, etc.).
The problem goes like this: given a generic list of points:
Each of these configurations for a perimeter equally fits the above:
Laurent already went for another possible solution, the stochastic approach (by subdividing the connecting lines), I slightly adjusted a few things over his solution:
namely, I added a rounding option to adjust for some weird tolerance issues (some points that should be at Y=80 were at Y=79.99998 or something) and a more straightforward solution to group them by section plane using sets logic. This, coupled with alpha shape, gives a quite good approach, still very coarse in terms of results but that depends on the sampling resolution of the field (i.e. number of height sections in which you calculate the metaballs) and sampling length of the connecting lines.
Definition attached.…
Diffraction , I left it, how it is.
For the unusual issues that comes in the image source component, so, is it something strange? But, I still have the same issues when I sets any integer component (single or multiple) in the “reflection order” of the image source component, in the “image source order” in the ray tracing component, and again, when I connect the output “Direct sound data” of Direct Sound component in the Energy Time Curve.
Do I wrong something with the integer component? I used it already in the first parts, for sets “grasshopper layers”, in the “Scene” component, but here it works. Should I start with a new file?
For the multi-object optimization, thank you for all suggestions. Yes, I red PHD thesis work of Tomas Mendez and the article “ EDT, C80 and G Driven Auditorium design” and still others. Thank you to all these articles, I decided where to focus my thesis.
I understand the potential of Multi-object optimization, and problems that I can finding without using it. Actually, in the beginning of my thesis, I tried to jet in contact with the Politecnico di Torino, but was not easy because I’m not a Politecnico student.
Here, in University of Florence (Building engineering), there isn’t a department or someone that is already familiar with these field of study, so, as you can image, for design my thesis, I can confide on online resources. So far, my Professor suggest me to begin with a Nonlinear Global optimization like Galapagos, and only after see the multi-object. In this way, step by step if something doesn’t work is easier to understand way and where something is going wrong: if are problems due to the setting of the programs, because we are not practical about these, or if there is a wrong in the simulations or in the algorithm and ect.
Do you think is a good way for go on?
Thank you very much,
Kind Regards
Giulia
…
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
It was originally developed at NBBJ by the Design Computation Leadership Team over the course of about 10 months in 2015-2016.
Primary development by:
Andrew Heumann / andheum / @andrewheumann
Lead Developer
Marc Syp / marcsyp / @mpsyp
Product Manager
Nate Holland / nateholland / @_NateHolland
Contributing Developer
----
Gone are the days of faking a user interface by laying out sliders and text panels and hiding wires on the Grasshopper canvas. Human UI interfaces are entirely separate from the Grasshopper canvas and leverage the power of Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF), a graphical subsystem for rendering user interfaces in the Windows environment.
OLD NEW
In other words: Human UI makes your GH definition feel like a Windows app. Create tabbed views, dynamic sliders, pulldown menus, checkboxes, and even 3D viewports and web browsers that look great and make sense to anyone--including designers and clients with no understanding of Grasshopper.
Download the plugin + sample files:
Food4Rhino
View the project on Bitbucket:
Bitbucket
We look forward to seeing where this project takes you, please share your projects made with Human UI!…