nts but as there are polylines and surfaces in it, they are conflicting as the geometries are overlapping and intersecting.
The input for the model is a centre point and four connecting points: we can call them CNT, A, B, C and D. The model works for these points - it's quite complicated with lots of polylines, vector geometry, surfaces, rotations, etc. - but it still works and has an output of two breps.
If I had a compilation of N sets of CNT, A, B, C and D's, is there a way of feeding each of these into the grasshopper in individual sets rather than just plugging in the huge set of numbers - e.g. feeding in CNT1, A1, B1, C1 and D1 and getting a result before moving on to CNT2, A2, B2, C2 and D2?
I've tried looking through tree structures, but it seems to be failing when the size of the set isn't known - e.g. how to extract all the information from trees when N isn't know using list item (i=0, i=1, i=2..., i=N).
I hope I've managed to explain the problem adequately, I can make up an easier to understand Grasshopper model later if I haven't explained well...
Thanks in advance for any comments, pointers, etc.…
orm of the model but when I try to add the piping to it, I get the message saying Windows has ran out of memory.
I am using Windows 7 and have tried going into the BCD as recommended here: http://wiki.mcneel.com/rhino/memoryincrease but I was not able to run this command.
I have then tried to increase my virtual memory within Windows, even up to 30GB with no luck.
I'm pretty sure I'm doing something really wrong here but I really need to get this modelled ASAP for a portfolio submission.
Any help would be very much appreciated!
Regards
James
…
) function if you've already got a boolean value.
This expression:
x < 12
results in exactly the same things as this expression:
If( x < 12, True, False )
If() is only really useful when you want to return non-boolean data, like so:
If( x < 12, x, 100-x )
In this case, the expression will return either x, or 100-x if x is larger than or equal to 12:
x result
1 1
2 2
10 10
11 11
12 88
13 87
14 86
18 82
70 30
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 7:22am on August 10, 2011
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…
hopper) and High Definition visualizations (V-Ray) and exploring its scientific innovations supporting the users' platform philosophical ideas.
SESSIONS: 5 sessions of 8 hours (40 hours total)
E-MAIL: educacion@chconsultores.net
REGISTRATION: (55) 56 62 57 93
TECHNICAL INFO: 044 (55) 31 22 71 83
INSTRUCTORS: Have past experience working at Gehry Technologies, and participated at studios with Eric Owen Moss and Tom Wiscombe at SCI-Arc (Southern California Institute of Architecture).
Day 1: Introduction to MAYA tools, 3D exercise start.
Day 2: Continue 3D exercise.
Day 3: Original 3D architecture design.
Day 4: Grasshopper optional application on 3D architecture design.
Day 5: V-Ray Application on 3D architecture design.
30 DAY TRIAL SOFTWARE DOWNLOAD:MAYA 2012: http://www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-maya/free-triaRHINO 4: http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.na.mcneel.com/rhino/4.0/2011-02-11/eval/rh40eval_en_20110211.exe3DS MAX 2010: http://www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-3ds-max/free-trialVRAY FOR 3DS MAX: http://www.vray.com/vray_for_3ds_max/demo/thankyou.shtml#thankyouPHOTOSHOP e ILLUSTRATOR: https://creative.adobe.com/apps?trial=PHSP&promoid=JZXPS
www.helenico.edu.mx
www.scifi-architecture.com/#!workshops/c1wua
LIKE US ON: www.facebook.com/scifiarchitecture
…
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
he picture (4).
Previously, I had a problem with generating intersections between the two directions of the beams, but a colleague helped me by extending beams, so there was no problem with lines of intersection. But this solution has generated curl (5) at the highest vertex geometry, which I ignored in order to repair it before printing, perhaps this mean my problem with my beam spread properly. Only when the beams is 19, does not jump no problem, but I still can not distribute them properly.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
I tried to show as simply as possible by removing or signing my code in GHX file.
Thank you in advance for your help
…
le discontinuous list of index numbers and I'd like to be able to generate a set of domains where each span of numbers would have its own domain. For example:
This list: 5,6,7,8,9,22,23,24,25,26,77,78,79,80,81...
Would give these domains: 5 to 9, 22 to 26, 77 to 81...
I'm at a loss as to how I can achieve this though. I know I can use the bounds function on the list but that would give a single domain, not several. In case it helps the list in question was generated by a true/false cull pattern from the complete list of indices so simply determining the indices of the beginning and end of each chunk of 'trues' in the cull pattern would work as well as it would give the same domains. I can post an example file if anyone would like but I figure this is a pretty general issue.
So anybody have any ideas on how to solve this multiple domains from a single list problem? Thanks in advance for any help at all, I'd really appreciate it!
James…
the various digital design methods and technologies that they employ in their design workflow, highlighted at various scales through their recent work. Organizers and Moderators: Andrew Haas, Program Co-Director, Architectural Association Visiting School New York Alfonso Oliva, Associate/Director, LERA Consulting Structural Engineers Speakers: Luc Wilson, Senior Associate Principal and Director, KPF Urban Interface Dan Levine, Associate Director, Solutions Engineering – United Technologies (UTC) Jan Leenknegt, Architect and BIM Manager, Bjarke Ingels Group (BIG) Introductions by AIANY Technology Committee Co-Chairs: Michael Brotherton, AIA, VP of Operations, Situ Fabrication LLC Alexandra Pollock, AIA, LEED AP BD+C, Director of Design Technology, Senior Associate, FX Collaborative – Due to building security requirements, a state-issued photo ID or valid passport is required to obtain building entry. Advanced registration is required. This event is free and open to the public. Refreshments and pizza will be served.
Register: https://www.facebook.com/events/1019498534923019…
Added by Andrew Haas at 10:42am on October 30, 2018