2d grid from
grasshopper but in 3d, fully controllable of course. I want to do something
like the image in this web
site:http://news.cnet.com/Photos-Weaving-high-tech-fabrics-of-the-future—page-12/2009-1008_3-5667576-12.html
I figured that connecting points and lines kind of works (point and line input AB command) but the line length changes when I move a
point. What I want to be able to do is to move a point and drag others but keep
the line segments constant, just as a real net.
…
Added by Jesus Garza at 8:28am on February 23, 2010
ehow acquire different settings/are calculated differently. Appears at random “rows” of points, sometimes it all works fine, so I need to do a series for the error to show. See images below.
In the Ladybug fly run the VT of the window changes.
It’s taken me a day and a half to track this error down. Phew.
I get the same error on two different comps.
What is causing this? Does anyone get the same error? Images below created with RADquality set to 2, and 7 cores. Fiddling with Radsettings dont help, I think, except error goes away with very low ab.
…
We invite participants of the eCAADe 2015 conference to propose workshops on their current research. The workshops will be held on the 14th an the 15th of September…
50 and reduced the 'cell size' slider to 0.5. When the 'Azimuth' angle is changed to 180 +- 90 (dawn or dusk), the points are widely dispersed, reducing the density and increasing the number of cells in the "sparse grid". Under these conditions, the number of cells was ~2000 and the Profiler time for 'Boundary' went up to a full minute or more each time 'Altitude' or 'Azimuth' was changed.
So I created this code to benchmark some alternatives and found two interesting things:
'Boundary' surface performance (v.1) is not linear. As the number of surfaces goes from 1000 to 2000, the time per surface goes up dramatically.
I tried three alternatives for creating a rectangular surface at a given point that are all substantially faster: v.2, v.3 and v.4. For 2000 points, v.4 is 150 times faster than v.1 !!!
Performance of v.2, v.3 and v.4 are similar and all scale up very well. To benchmark beyond 2000 points, I recommend disabling the VERY SLOW v.1. At 5000 points the 'Pop2D' component takes ~11.3 seconds but v.3 and v.4 take less than one second to generate 5000 surfaces!
See boundary_2015Nov19a.gh attached.
So I replaced the 'Rectangle' and 'Boundary' components in my sun reflection model with v.4 in focus_2015Nov19b.gh (also attached) and the performance is amazing.
I'm sure someone has mentioned this performance issue with 'Boundary' on the forum before but as with many things, I didn't realize what a major obstacle it can be until I discovered this for myself.…
Added by Joseph Oster at 9:16pm on November 19, 2015
grout lines, a tile surface and tile perimeter poly line). I then use that as a Mesh (from Rhino) in the second definition.
2. I can tile out the mesh surface and rotate all the tiles in 90 deg. increments.
To get what I wanted. I took the Mesh and have copied it in series to make a grid. I can then control the dimensions of the grid. X and Y extents. I can also rotate the tiles around their centers.
The spacing of the grid is set from an edge curve of the tile (or mesh). This sets the size of the squares in the grid themselves.
See definition, images and Rhino 4 File, to give the definitions a shot. I have labeled how to use them.
My question -- how can I randomly rotate squares in my grid? I would like the deg of rotation to be random and also which tiles they are.
Also how might I rotate (every other tile) for example? So that I can control the pattern more?
Thoughts?
Thanks!
…
ror when it comes to points on edges of the surface.I guess it is because normal vectors at a few of points are invalid. After all, because of these invalid points, an error message comes out which is saying " Runtime error (PythonException) : Unable to add polyline to document " and it results in no output. Please give me some help if you know how to handle this problem. I post a code below.Thanks in advance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
import Rhinoimport rhinoscriptsyntax as rsimport mathimport ghpythonlib.components as gh
output_crvs = []
for pt1 in input_pt :output_pts = []newPt = pt1output_pts.append(newPt)
while len(output_pts) <= 100: newPt = outputpoint(base_srf, newPt, distance_factor) output_pts.append(newPt)
output_crv = rs.AddPolyline(output_pts)output_crvs.append(output_crv)A = output_crvs
def outputpoint(base_srf, input_pt, distance_factor):centre_point = rs.AddPoint(0,0,0)height_point = rs.AddPoint(0,0,10)
zaxis = rs.VectorAdd(centre_point, height_point)
cp_pt = rs.SurfaceClosestPoint(base_srf, input_pt)normal_vector = rs.SurfaceNormal(base_srf, cp_pt)drain_vector = rs.VectorCrossProduct(normal_vector, zaxis)
dvector2 = rs.VectorUnitize(drain_vector)dvector3 = rs.VectorRotate(dvector2, 90, normal_vector)
mpt = gh.DeconstructVector(distance_factor*dvector3)moved_pt = rs.PointAdd(input_pt, mpt)moved_uv = rs.SurfaceClosestPoint(base_srf, moved_pt)output_pt = rs.EvaluateSurface(base_srf, moved_uv[0], moved_uv[1])
return output_pt…
g from a list of 12 items I would find all the combinations taking just 4 at time.
I'd use a Stream gate that takes the indexes of the items and pass them to a list item in order to select just the items of the combination. Doing so I can choose a single combination of index at time to pass to the list item.
In this moment all the data come out from the first gate, all the others are empty.
If I pass these index to the list item it gives me an error (probably because of the data structure).
*long version*
I start from a list of 12 segments, all of them with the starting point in common and the ending point distributed regularly in the space. It's a quite simple starting point.
What I'm trying to achieve is to find all the possible spatial configurations made of 2, 3, 4 segments. I started with 2 segments so I've 12^2=144 possible configurations but just 4 different configurations that can intuitivelly be recognized (60°, 90°, 120°, 180°).
Doing the same with 3 segments generates 12^3=1728 configurations and I don't know how many different ones. With 4 segments I've got 12^4=20736 possible configurations.
As you can imagine many configurations are identical but just with a different orientation so at the end I'll have to parse geometrically the output to delete duplicates (I'll address this later on).
Please could you help me to figure out how to mix these segments in different configurations?
Thank you in advance.…
per bake commands to bake the connected geometry with the corresponding materials.
mxDiff is a simple diffuse material. Only reflectance color for 0° and 90° are exposed.
mxEmit is a basic emitter material. You can set light color, power and efficiacy of the emitter.
mxBasic is the most complex material for now. You can set all the properties of a single layer material including. Use this for transparent materials.
mList is your way if you don't want to create your own materials. This component returns a list of all the materials on the Maxwell scene manager. Make sure this is evaluated after you add your own materials if you want to see them in the list.…
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
…