basis" problem ... all of a sudden - quite recently - a girl posted the MITESIGF (Most Important Thread Even Seen In Grasshopper Forums). She doesn't even realized that: she's novice:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/array-1
4. Why this MITESIGF is MITESIGF? For 2 reasons:
4.a: Wooden pairs (Beams) Profile Curves (belonging in some tree) MUST allow individual control on a per "item basis" (OK, that's obvious) - see Images posted in the thread. No attractor (or any other "global" policy) can cut the mustard here (to tell you the truth this happens in 99% of pure engineering cases, but they appear very rarely in GH Forums - if at all, mind). If the profile curves are defined with 5 points (or 9 for the double thing) we need "on-the-fly" control over this Array (like the radii in your Sphere Manipulator) :
4.b: Critical Bottom-to-Top issues arise: Create a "global" topology (call it "parent") - the beams - and then place real-life "components" (call them "childs") that affect (most probably) the "parent". OK, that's impossible to do with GH/Rhino (peace of cake with CATIA/Microstation) but you can "approximate" things up to a point. Alternatively: you can "trigger" some interest from GH/Rhino developers if they have any AEC market(s) in mind.
Topic 4.a requires the master-to-slave slider thingy (iterate over branches (index slider:master) > reset the 5 values (value slider:slave) > modify them on the fly > save > increase/decrease branch > ...).
Other than that my definitions are far more challenging than this simple case ... but ... anyway ... long is the path (and hilly).
more soon.
best, The Troll
…
ails.
Some word about the mesh... (see Image_01)
I took a flat 4 points NURBS surface as imput (very easy, it defines the total area of my pavilion) and some points (that defines the contact with the ground).
Then I extracted a grid of points from the NURBS (Surface_Util_Divide surface) and compared 'em with the contol points, in order to associate to each grid's point its own attractor (Vector_Point_Closest Point).
Than I moved the points down. I used the distance from each point to its attractor (inverted) as amplitude for the vector of the movement, in order to say: the nearer you are to the control point, the more intense your movement will be. During this operation I've passed the distances' data list into a graph mapper (Params_Special_Graph Mapper), in order to regulate in a very intuitive and interactive way the shaping of my canopy.
At the end of the process I asked GH for a simple Delaunay mesh (Mesh_Triangulation_Delaunay Mesh). It's a very cool command, I believe!!!
Ok, now some word about the component, it's design and it's repetition/adaptation to the mesh...
(see Image_02)
I took the mesh and extracted components on first and faces's information on second. Then I selected and separated the vertexes (1°, 2°, 3°) of each triangular face into threee well defined list.
Then I re-created the triangles' edges. Please pay attention because it's not the same if you use output information from Delaunay components, because here we need a justapposition of edges where triangles touches each others.
After this work I joined the edges and found their centroid. At the same time I found the mid point of each edge.
Now the component... (see Image_03)
It' a little bit longer to describe: I'll try to be synthetic.
Substantially it is a loft from a curve to a point, repeated three times for each triangle (Surface_Freeform_Extrude Point). The point is an elevation of the centroid of the triangle (you can choose if the exstrusion has a single height or it's related to an attractor. In my case it was fixed). The curve is combination of things. There's an arch, which starts on the edge (there's an offset from the corner) end terminates on the same edge (on the other side, obviously). While it's generation the arch passes through a third point which belong to another segment. This last connects the mid point of the original edge (base triangle) with the centroid. The result is a kind of polyline, with two segments and an arch. If you go back to the image of the component that I posted probably you'll understand what I'm saying better than with the definition.
The posit…
of a hack to push it to an android device, and you can't use labels, which is a very bad point!
...
I won't buy an Iphone!
The other is Control OSC. It looks rougher, but it has a lot of advantages to me.
+ Game of Life included!
+ you can use and update labels :))
+ Has a nice muti touch widget unfeatured in touch osc
+ You can script the interface using java script manipulation in gh, stream it to your dropbox and update in one "tap", as follows
Does anyone have experience with scripting interfaces for this software? I'm stuck already. I know nothing of java script to begin with. As you can see I managed to format the labels but the osc message I could not find a way, it stays untouched.
Just in case someone knows better, here are my "objects" (I said that right?). The userXXX are replaced in GH.
{ "name":"userName", "type":"Slider", "x":(xPadding + .11), "y": yPadding, "width":.82, "height":.082, "color":"userColor", "min":userMin, "max":userMax, "ontouchmove" : "var roundedvalue = this.value.toFixed(userFix); LbluserName2.changeValue(roundedvalue)", "onvaluechange": "oscManager.sendOSC('/userName', 'f', this.value.toFixed(userFix))",},{ "name":"LbluserName1", "type":"Label", "x":xPadding, "y": yPadding, "width":.1, "height":.05, "color":"userColor", "value": "userName"},{ "name":"LbluserName2", "type":"Label", "x":xPadding, "y": (yPadding + 0.05), "width":.1, "height":.05, "address":"/userName", "color":"userColor", "value": 0},…
eaningful. Humans must interact with it. Information arises when humans examine the data. Knowledge is created when information is transformed through human social interactions.”
Richard Gayle via spacecollective
The space in which we live can be monitored in many aspects and appears to be to be a gradient of data in continuous evolution and change. One of the major advantages of parametric tools is to be able to inform the design processes with accurate, specific and variable, in space and time, data streams .
DATA BODIES is a Grasshopper workshop that will focus on how its nature as an information processor and how it can be (ab)used in order to manipulate data, streaming inputs from various sources and use datafeeds to inform geometry or data structures from the very simple up to more complex ones. The aim is to give an understanding of information and data articultion as already a spatial and architectural operation; results may range from pure data communication protocols, dataviz or data-driven geometries depending on the skill levels and aspirations of each participant. The brief is also open to the suggestions and opportunities that may rise during the workflow.
DETAILS: http://www.superbelleville.org/dataworkshop/…
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…
connected hyperspace where architecture can be fluid, flexible and vivid, yet the aspect of materiality requires more attention.
Action-designed structures begin to move beyond the utopian proposals of the 20th century’s manifestos and hold a place in the world of realized designs. The AA Athens Visiting School aims to bring users closer to the built environment while revisiting habits of designing, building and experiencing space through materiality. Understanding materiality and form as a ‘unified whole’, the programme integrates manufacturing techniques through the experimentation fabrication of prototypes at a 1:1 scale.
Prominent Features of the workshop/ skills developed
Participants become part of an active learning environment where the large tutor to student ratio allows for personalized tutorials and debates.
The toolset of the Athens VS includes but is not limited to Processing and Grasshopper for Rhinoceros, as well as design analysis software.
Participants gain hands-on experience on digital fabrication.
Design seminars and a series of lectures support the key objectives of the programme, disseminating fundamental computational techniques, relevant critical thinking, theoretical understanding and professional awareness.
Applications
1) You can make an application by completing the online application found under ‘Links and Downloads’ on the AA Visiting School page. If you are not able to make an online application, email visitingschool@aaschool.ac.uk for instructions to pay by bank transfer. 2) Once you complete the online application and make a full payment, you are registered to the programme. A CV or a portfolio is NOT required.
The deadline for applications is 28 June.
Location AKTO College – Athens Campus 11Α Evelpidon Street (Pedion Areos) Athens, 113 62, Greece
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £695 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting membership fee. Fees do not include flights or accommodation, but accommodation options can be advised.
Eligibility The workshop is open to current Undergrad and Graduate architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Adobe Creative Suite, Rhino 5.
For more information, please visit:
http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/VISITING/athens
http://ai.aaschool.ac.uk/athens/
For inquiries, please contact:
alexandros.kallegias@aaschool.ac.uk…
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