bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Matrix transforms and persistent constraints: I don't think this is true. The parts can have mates to other parts that preserve geometric relationships like 'coincident' , 'aligned' etc. These are essentially bi-directional. GH's algorithmic approach does not do relationships in the same / flexible way. In GH, the 'relationship' has to be part of the generation method that dependent on the creation sequence. I.e. draw line 2 perpendicularly from the end of point of line 1. If you are thinking about parts or assemblies sharing, or referencing parameters as part of the regen process, this is also possible. iLogic does this, and adds scripting. So does Catia. Inventor/iLogic can also access Excel and have all the parameter processing done centrally, if required.
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.
I wouldn't be too hasty here. Yes, you are right about compartmentalisation. I think this needs to happen with GH, in order to deal with scalability/everyday interoperability requirements. Confining projects to one script is not sustainable. MCAD apps have been doing this for ages with 'Relational Modeling'.The Adaptive Components placement example illustrates that it is beneficial to be able to script some 'hints' that can be used on placement of the component. Say, if your component requires points as inputs, then its should be able to find the nearest points to the cursor as it moves around. I think Aish's D# / DesignScript demo'd this kind of behaviour a few years ago. Similarly, Modo Toolpipe reminds me how a lot of UI based transactions can be captured as scripts (macro recorder etc). Allowing this input to be mixed in and/or extended by GH I think will yield a lot of 'modeling efficiency' around the edges. This is a (mis)using GH as an user-programmable 'jig' for placing/manipulating 'dumb' elements in Rhino. It may even give the 'dumb elements' a bit more 'intelligence' by leaving behind embedded attributes, like links to particular construction planes etc.Even if we confine ourselves to scripting. GH is a visual or graphic programming interface. A lot of 'insert and connect' tasks can be done more easily using graphic methods. If we need to select certain vertices on a mesh as inputs for, say, a facade panel, its going to be quicker to do this 'graphically' (like the AC example), then ferreting out the relevant indices in the data tree et al. The 'facade panel' script would then have some coding to filter/prompt the user as to what inputs were acceptable, and so on.
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.
Not sure what you mean here. If the i-parts are built up using sketches /profiles or other more rudimentary features (like Revits' profile/face etc family templates) then reuse should be fairly straight forward. I suppose you could make it like GH scripting, if you cut and paste or include script snippets that generate the desired Inventor features.
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.
I don't think this is true. Look at the automotive body design apps, which are mostly Catia based. All of the body parts are pretty much 'generative' and generated from splines, in a procedural way, using very similar approaches to GH. Or sheet metal design. It's not always about configuration of off-the-shelf items like bolts. And, the constraints manager is available to arbitrate which bit of script fires first, and your mundane workaday associative dimensions etc can update without getting run over by the DAG(s) :-)
…
mplex the models are. If we are running multi-room E+ studies, that will take far longer to calculate.
Rhino/Grasshopper = <1%
Generating Radiance .ill files = 88%
Processing .ill files into DA, etc. = ~2%
E+ = 10%
Parallelizing Grasshopper:
My first instinct is to avoid this problem by running GH on one computer only. Creating the batch files is very fast. The trick will be sending the radiance and E+ batch files to multiple computers. Perhaps a “round-robin” approach could send each iteration to another node on the network until all iterations are assigned. I have no idea how to do that but hope that it is something that can be executed within grasshopper, perhaps a custom code module. I think GH can set a directory for Radiance and E+ to save all final files to. We can set this to a local server location so all runs output to the same location. It will likely run slower than it would on the C:drive, but those losses are acceptable if we can get parallelization to work.
I’m concerned about post-processing of the Radiance/E+ runs. For starters, Honeybee calculates DA after it runs the .ill files. This doesn’t take very long, but it is a separate process that is not included in the original Radiance batch file. Any other data manipulation we intend to automatically run in GH will be left out of the batch file as well. Consolidating the results into a format that Design Explorer or Pollination can read also takes a bit of post-processing. So, it seems to me that we may want to split up the GH automation as follows:
Initiate
Parametrically generate geometry
Assign input values, material, etc.
Generate radiance/ E+ batch files for all iterations
Calculate
Calc separate runs of Radiance/E+ in parallel via network clusters. Each run will be a unique iteration.
Save all temp files to single server location on server
Post Processing
Run a GH script from a single computer. Translate .ill files or .idf files into custom metrics or graphics (DA, ASE, %shade down, net solar gain, etc.)
Collect final data in single location (excel document) to be read by Design Explorer or Pollination.
The above workflow avoids having to parallelize GH. The consequence is that we can’t parallelize any post-processing routines. This may be easier to implement in the short term, but long term we should try to parallelize everything.
Parallelizing EnergyPlus/Radiance:
I agree that the best way to enable large numbers of iterations is to set up multiple unique runs of radiance and E+ on separate computers. I don’t see the incentive to split individual runs between multiple processors because the modular nature of the iterative parametric models does this for us. Multiple unique runs will simplify the post-processing as well.
It seems that the advantages of optimizing matrix based calculations (3-5 phase methods) are most beneficial when iterations are run in series. Is it possible for multiple iterations running on different CPUs to reference the same matrices stored in a common location? Will that enable parallel computation to also benefit from reusing pre-calculated information?
Clustering computers and GPU based calculations:
Clustering unused computers seems like a natural next step for us. Our IT guru told me that we need come kind of software to make this happen, but that he didn’t know what that would be. Do you know what Penn State uses? You mentioned it is a text-only Linux based system. Can you please elaborate so I can explain to our IT department?
Accelerad is a very exciting development, especially for rpict and annual glare analysis. I’m concerned that the high quality GPU’s required might limit our ability to implement it on a large scale within our office. Does it still work well on standard GPU’s? The computer cluster method can tap into resources we already have, which is a big advantage. Our current workflow uses image-based calcs sparingly, because grid-based simulations gather the critical information much faster. The major exception is glare. Accelerad would enable luminance-based glare metrics, especially annual glare metrics, to be more feasible within fast-paced projects. All of that is a good thing.
So, both clusters and GPU-based calcs are great steps forward. Combining both methods would be amazing, especially if it is further optimized by the computational methods you are working on.
Moving forward, I think I need to explore if/how GH can send iterations across a cluster network of some kind and see what it will take to implement Accelerad. I assume some custom scripting will be necessary.…
ou will see all of the available components on a ribbon at once so there is no need to keep clicking drop down menus.
It's all about discoverability with GH. What if you're a beginner and don't know about the Create Facility (dbl click canvas) how can you find Extr?
Even if you hover over every component or use the drop down lists you will not see the name Extr appear anywhere.
Sure it makes sense that Extr is short for Extrude but it's also the Nick Name of Extrude to Point component
So you can easily miss the fact that one has a Distance Input verses a Point Input.
I think I made the move to Icons around about the move from version 0.5 to 0.6, possibly before. I initially thought that I would go back to text because I loved the mono chromatic look of the text but I soon realised that Icons were the way forward. The greatest benefit is speed. You don't need to digest and decipher every component (which is written 90 degrees to the norm).
I'm not saying you should move to Icons forthwith but at least consider that once you have a better knowledge and understanding of GH, Icons will set you free.
My top ten tips that I would highly recommend to anyone wanting to better themselves with GH.
1) Turn on Draw Icons
2) Turn on Draw Fancy Wires
3) Turn on Obscure Components
4) Use the Create Facility like a Command Line eg "Slider=-1<0.75<2" or "Shiftlist=-1"
5) Use Component Aliases to customise your use of the Create Facility eg giving the Point XYZ component an alias of XYZ will bring it up as the first option on the Create Facility as opposed to the other possibilities.
6) Try to answer other people's questions even if it's not relevant to your own area. By looking into solving a problem outside of your comfort zone and then posting your results it is very rewarding but it also lets you see the other approaches that get posted in a new light.
7) Take the time to understand Data/Path structures.
8) Buy a second monitor - There is nothing that can compare to real estate when working in Grasshopper.
9) Read Rajaa Issa's Essential Mathematics
10) Pick a panel in a tab on the ribbon and get to know every component inside and out and then move on. Start with the Sets Tab > List Panel…
16-20 / PUEBLA JULY 23-27
This workshop is intended primarily for architects and designers interested in learning parametric and generative design applied to the generation and rationalization of complex geometries for their implementation in different design processes. The course will cover basic concepts and methodology to address many design issues through the development of algorithmic tools via a visual programming language and the development of digital fabrication schemes. Rhinoceros 3D and Grasshopper are going to be used as our modeling tools and V-Ray as our rendering engine. Monday to Friday from 10am to 2pm and from 4pm to 8pm 40hrs.
No previous knowledge of Rhinoceros 3D or programming required, CAD background desirable.
Students: 4,000 MXN Professionals: 5,000 MXN Info: workshop@3dmetrica.com 044 55 28790084 www.3dmetrica.com
www.facebook.com/3dmetrica
TALLER DE VERANO ARQUITECTURA PARAMETRICA DISEÑO GENERATIVO RHINO + GRASSHOPPER + V-RAY
TOUR MÉXICO 2012
MEXICALI 25 AL 29 DE JUNIO / CIUDAD DE MÉXICO 2 AL 6 DE JULIO / MORELIA 9 AL 13 DE JULIO / GUADALAJARA 16 AL 20 DE JULIO / PUEBLA 23 AL 27 DE JULIO
Este taller está dirigido principalmente a arquitectos y diseñadores interesados en el aprendizaje del diseño paramétrico y generativo aplicados a la generación y racionalización de geometrías complejas para su implementación en diferentes procesos de diseño. En el curso se abordarán los conceptos básicos y metodología para hacer frente a diversas problemáticas del diseño mediante el desarrollo de herramientas algorítmicas a través de un lenguaje de programación visual y el desarrollo de esquemas de fabricación digital. Se utilizarán Rhinoceros 3D y Grasshopper como herramientas de modelado y V-Ray como motor de renderizado. Lunes a Viernes de 10am a 2pm y de 4pm a 8pm 40 hrs.
No se requieren conocimientos previos de Rhinoceros 3D ni de programación, conocimientos previos de CAD deseables.
Estudiantes: 4,000 MXN Profesionales: 5,000 MXN Info: workshop@3dmetrica.com 044 55 28790084 www.3dmetrica.com
www.facebook.com/3dmetrica
…
and 3d rapid prototyping using state of the art material simulation and optimisation. Participants will be guided through methods of advanced structural analysis and evolutionary algorithms implemented in Grasshopper, Karamba and Octopus in a 5 day workshop taught by Robert Vierlinger and Matthew Tam within the premises of the Academy of Fine Arts & Design in Bratislava, Slovakia. The workshop will cover the basics of setting up a karamba definition and more advanced form finding techniques with beams and shells through to preparing files for 3d printing and 2d documentation. For the Grasshopper newcomers there is a preparatory crash course on 20 July 2015 taught by Ján Pernecký. The workshop will be held entirely in English. VENUE Academy of Fine Arts and Design in Bratislava: VŠVU / AFAD, Hviezdoslavovo námestie 18, Bratislava, Slovakia ROOM 135 PRICING Early bird Student (until Jun 30, 2015) €320 Early bird Professional (until Jun 30, 2015) €380 Regular Student (from Jun 30, 2015) €400 Regular Professional (from Jun 30, 2015) €475 The fee covers only the tuition. Travel expenses, accommodation and food is to be covered by the participants. SCHEDULE Day 1 Lecture - Karamba in Projects from Competition to Construction Introduction to karamba - Setting up a basic karamba model Shells & Beams - Understanding the impact of load on geometries. Beams - Cross Section Optimization, Load Path Emergence Day 2 Extraction and Visualization of data from Karamba Complex Geometry - Processing of Free Forms for Karamba Force Flow - Understanding and Visualizing results on shells 3d Printing - Preparing geometries for rapid prototyping Day 3 Lecture - Form Finding in Karamba Isler Shells - Hanging Forms with karamba Shells - Shape Optimisation with Galapagos Trusses - Topology Optimization with Galapagos Columns - Positioning with Galapagos Multiobjective optimisation strategies with Octopus Day 4 Frequency Analysis & Non-Linear Analysis with Karamba Extraction and Visualization Part 2 BIS - Building Information Systems with karamba Day 5 Participant’s Examples and Topics Reviewing 3d Print Studies Large Complex Models Reviewing learn techniques and strategies Concluding lecture - public PARTNERS rese arch Academy of fine arts and design…
a nodi, permette di sfruttara le potenza della programmazione, senza necessariamente avere competenze avanzate.
Con Grasshopper potrete avere accesso ai segreti della modellazione generativa, un nuovo linguaggio progettuale che sta cambiando il mondo del design, a partire dalla gioielleria, fino ad arrivare all'architettura.
Durante il corso sarà possibile comprendere le caratteristiche di funzionamento del programma e applicarlo alla creazione di oggetti complessi che potranno essere stampati in 3D, oppure renderizzati. La durata è di 30 ore e alla fine del percorso verrà rilasciato il certificato McNeel.
Il Programma
Il corso spiega i concetti base di modellazione parametrica e generativa. Nello specifico:
Interfaccia e comandi
Parametri e componenti
Interopazione con Rhinoceros
Strumenti di parametrizzazione
Combinazione dati
Data tree
Creazioni di superfici attraverso algoritmi di paneling
Teoria degli attrattori
Gestione strumenti mesh
Creazione di Cluster
Durante il corso saranno proposte esercitazioni pratiche sul campo di utilizzo preferito dallo studente
Il docente
Antonino Marsala, è un formatore certificato McNeel con alle spalle oltre 11 anni di esperienza nel settore della modellazione 3D. Oltre ad occuparsi di formazione, collabora con aziende orafe e di architettura per la messa in pratica dei principi di modellazione generativa, applicandoli a casi reali.
FAQ
Quanto costa il corso?
Il prezzo del corso è di 500,00 € + IVA che potranno essere saldati in una soluzione unica. Nel caso di iscrizione di gruppo, potrà essere applicato uno sconto.
Cosa posso portare e cosa non devo portare all'evento?
Gli organizzatori forniranno computer con il software già installato. Nel caso vogliate portare il vostro computer, vi forniremo una versione trial da 90giorni di Rihnoceros e Grasshopper
Dove posso contattare l'organizzatore per qualsiasi domanda?
antonio@mandarinoblu.com
334 24 20 203
La mia registrazione o il mio biglietto è trasferibile?
Si, purchè venga comunicato il cambiamento entro 48 ore dalla partena del corso
…
ght on why this is, and some ideas I have for how to improve things going forward.
MeshMachine grew out of some scripts I started developing over 3 years ago (described here), originally just with the aim of achieving approximately equal edge lengths on a smooth closed triangulated mesh.
As time went on, I kept adding things, such as ways of keeping boundaries and sharp edges fixed, different ways of controlling edge lengths that vary across the surface, and different ways of pulling to surfaces.
I was also still experimenting with different rules for the core remeshing operations, such as valence driven vs angle driven edge flips.
All of these things meant many variables in the script. I wanted to share the work so others could play with it, but not really knowing exactly what people might use it for made it difficult to simplify the interface, so I just exposed most of these variables I was using (actually there were originally even more, but I felt a component with 20+ inputs was excessive, and combined some of them and fixed others to default values).
I've never been happy with that component, but some people want a component that you can just feed a surface and get a mesh with 'nice' triangles, without too much fuss or needing to know anything about how it works, while other people want to be able to vary the density based on proximity to the border, and curvature, and attractor points and see the intermediate results, and model minimal surfaces without pulling to any underlying surface, and...
Since then I did the rewrite from Kangaroo to Kangaroo2, and through that process, and associated conversations with Steve Baer, David Rutten and Will Pearson, my ideas about how to structure libraries and make cleaner more flexible Grasshopper components changed. Much of this centres around using interfaces (in the specific programming sense, not to be confused with UI), because they allow separating code into multiple components, while still allowing to edit parts of it within Grasshopper, and other parts in a proper IDE (because I find the GH code editor is not conducive to writing large amounts of well structured object oriented code).
Towards the end of last year, Dave Stasiuk and Anders Deleuran invited me and Will Pearson over to CITA for a few days of mesh and physics coding and beer drinking. During this time I made the first steps to restructuring MeshMachine to be more modular and interface based like Kangaroo2, instead of one giant script. One of the main motivations for doing this was to make it easier to combine the K2 physics library with the remeshing. However, at the time I hadn't yet released K2, so it didn't make sense to post examples that used those libraries. After the launch of K2, this restructured MeshMachine development has been a bit on the back-burner, but this discussion and Dave Stasiuk's work with Cocoon is inspiring me to pick it up again.
Seeing how you are combining the Cocoon and MeshMachine, and how Dave is also using interfaces in his recent work suggests to me it might be possible to integrate them more smoothly...
…
of the point cloud. It is super quick, compared to what you have seen so far in Rhino, to load and display point clouds, as it works on multiple threads. Amongst others you can section the point cloud for referencing your footbridge, decimate it as needed for creating the enviroment, denoise it, clip and save parts of point clouds etc. You can right click the cloud components, giving you access to dynamic preview of the cloud, so that it does not drag in viewport while panning and zooming and at the same time controlling the "thickness" of the points in viewport, in case your camera gets close to the point cloud. It is a matter of visual preference.
I think that even 200mil points can be loaded with volvox.
Some references
12million points
13million points
13million points (right click dynamic settings low thickness)
13million points (right click dynamic settings high thickness)
15 million points (around 20sec!! to l0ad)
My pc (i7 3820, 32gb ram, gtx670 4gb) felt comfortable working with up to 15 mil point clouds. But that has to do with hardware along with your patience while working.
All clouds have been loaded as .txt files where the mask describing the info was x,y,z,r,g,b,u,v,w. Depends on how your data is in-text formatted.
You can check fly through animations all done with gh and Volvox here
(starting @~2:20)
best
alex
…
ly 26-27-28-29 (digital fabrication)
The third edition of digitalMed Workshop is structured as a design laboratory. Participants will learn the challenging process of producing ideas, projects and research analysis that are to be developed through specific software and concepts that emerge through the use of mapping, parametric design and digital fabrication.
The workshop will take place in the city of Salerno (Italy) and it will last 11 days structured into 3 intensive weekends: July 13-14-15 (mapping); July 19-20-21-22 (parametric design); July 26-27-28-29 (digital fabrication).
Goals and Objectives:
We aim to make clear the theoretical and technical knowledge in the approach to parametric and generative design and digital fabrication. (From collection and data management, to the manner in which these inform the geometries, to the fabrication of prototypes.)
Participants will also have the opportunity to practice the new knowledge gained in the design laboratory through project work.
Project Theme:
"Urban Field" Identify, study and analyze the system of public spaces in the urban area of the city of Salerno.
Connection, mutation, generation and evolution are the themes to be followed in project work.
Brief Description of Topics:
- Mapping. Our reality, in all its forms, has studied through concepts of the theory of Complex Systems. The techniques that will be used to study events and places of reality, will work for the management, manipulation and visualization of data and information. These will form the basis for project management and driven geometry, conducted during the second phase of the workshop.
- Parametric Design. Introduction to Rhino* and Grasshopper. Specifically, we will explain the concepts with which to work with the software of parametric design and how they function. Through these tools, we will arrive at the definition of systems of mathematical and / or geometrical relationships that are able to generate and govern patterns, shapes and objects that will inform the final design.
- Digital Fabrication. In this phase, participants of the workshop are organized into working groups. Participants have access to materials and conceptual apparatus that will take them directly to the fabrication of the geometries of the project, with the use of software CAD / CAM interface and the use of machines for the digital fabrication.
The DigitalMed workshop is organized by Nomad AREA (Academy of Research & Training in topics of Contemporary Architecture), in collaboration with the City of Salerno, the Order of Architects Province of Salerno and the National Institute of Architecture In / Arch - Campania.
Interested parties may download the Notice of Competition at the address www.digitalmedworkshop.com and fill the pre-registration no later than July 10th 2012.
PRESS OFFICE
Dr. Francesca Luciano
328 61 20 830
fra_luciano@libero.it
For information or subscriptions:
e-mail: info@digitalmedworkshop.com - tel: 089 463126 - 3391542980 …