nnot calculate (too many digits).
Or you want just to fill that space with random configuration and find some good for you?
Here's my first thoughts:
Again, as some other cases, iterative process.
(Conway's game of life, a cellular_automata-like process (?)... Install anemone.)
I would create 3 grids:
1 - grid of 100 values, cell's center points
these values can have more integer values like 0=free 1=occuped
2 - grid of 81 values, grid vertex points (excludig perimeter)
these values are where the center of 2x2 cells could be. 0=possible location 1=not possible location
3 - "grid" of 180 values, grid segment center, where 1x2 center could be
again 0 and 1
Then it's needed a "topology" between those 3 grids:
At each iteration those values updates each other by basing on placed cells and adjacent values.
At each iteration a new cell (random from A or B) is placed in a random possible location.
This is just my madness, and maybe I'm already far away from a result.
For sure a fasterst, simpler, smarter solution exists.…
rsity building with 81 thermal zones. I wanted to use this model on my master thesis, but I am afraid I won't be able. So I would really appreciate some help.
The purpose was to set different insulation thicknesses and glazing types depending on the orientation. Therefore I created every zone by using "createHBsrfs" components. At the same time different zones would have different "building programs".
I created all the zones, I added windows as "child surfaces" for every zone. And I created the adjacencies. No errors or whatsoever.
But from this point I cannot connect the model to any other component without GH being frozen. So although the model is correct maybe it is to heavy for the software, however I am not sure if that is the reason.
Is it stupid what I have done? Is there any easier way to accomplish my purpose?
Any thought or help will be much appreciated.
I attach the GH file.
Thank you,
Eduard
Version: HB 0.0.59 / LB 0.0.62…
e section which wont recompute with owner.expiresolution(true). Am I missing something ? I cannot declare buttons and form and all that stuff in run script, cause it doesnt accept withevents property. My idea is to recompute all the script component stuff...
This is my code :
Private Sub RunScript(ByVal x As Object, ByVal y As Object, ByRef A As Object)
If x = True Then frm.Controls.Add(b1) t1.location = p0 frm.Controls.add(t1) frm.show a = zmienna Else frm.Dispose End If
End Sub
'<Custom additional code> Dim frm As New system.windows.Forms.Form WithEvents b1 As New system.Windows.Forms.Button WithEvents t1 As New system.Windows.Forms.TextBox Dim p0 As New system.Drawing.Point(30, 30) Dim zmienna As String
Private Sub b1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles b1.click
zmienna = t1.Text owner.ExpireSolution(True)
End Sub
…
Introduzione a Grasshopper", il primo manuale su Grasshopper.
.
I corsi PLUG IT nascono dalla volontà di promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e condividere il know-how maturato attraverso ricerca, collaborazione con i più importanti studi di architettura e pubblicazioni internazionali.
.
Verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti con esperienza minima nella modellazione 3D e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche ed esercitazioni.
. Argomenti trattati:
- Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio - Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica - Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow
- Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati - Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici
- Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi - Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling - Attrattori, image sampler
- Data tree: gestione di dati complessi - Digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi - Nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni piane per macchine CNC
.
Verrà rilasciato un attestato finale.
.
Ulteriori info e programma completo su: www.arturotedeschi.com e su www.edizionilepenseur.it…
see in my bottom post image there is only one isocurve showing in U and V.
In Grasshopper there's no surface rebuild? Well, the same old Grasshopper Patch command will let you specify spans I guess, to make a surface from a planar curve, but it won't work for things with holes since they will just fill in!
You can recreate a surface painfully by untrimming, adding many UV points, rebuilding from those points, then retrimming with the original surface info, but the retrimming simply fails.
If you make a planar surface from a curve in Rhino, you end up with utterly no point editability:
No wonder my CreatePatch tests were a failure. The starting surface could not be distorted except in the extreme case of moving four corner points!
I have no idea how to successfully rebuild a surface akin to the Rhino rebuild command. It's great to be able to prototype in Grasshopper, but with Python I can rebuild easily ( http://4.rhino3d.com/5/rhinocommon/?topic=html/M_Rhino_Geometry_Surface_Rebuild.htm ;), so I guess I should start a collection, like peter, of little script components for prototyping with.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 6:18am on February 26, 2016
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013