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…
ceros.
Public concerné /
Architectes et designers, utilisateurs de Rhino souhaitant paramétrer Rhinocéros à l’aide de Grasshopper, programme
associant des composants et une structure de graphe interagissants avec le modèle Rhino.
Une bonne connaissance de Rhinocéros est nécessaire. La langue de la formation est le français.
Structure et Objectif de la formation /
La formation se déroule sur 3 jours : les 2 premières journées sont consacrées aux « fondamentaux » de Grasshopper
avec en préambule une introduction au design et à l’architecture paramétrique et leurs impacts dans la conception, la
création et la construction.
La troisième journée sous forme d’atelier est dédiée à l’étude de cas concrets proposés par les stagiaires, qui, quelques
jours avant la formation, pourront envoyer leurs projets par mail à info AT rhinoforyou DOT com
Les stagiaires, après la formation, pourront rester en contact avec les formateurs de HDA par le biais du blog
complexitys.com et le twitter @HDA_Paris. La durée de cette formation permettra d’atteindre une autonomie et une
bonne compréhension basée sur des exemples concrets.
3 Formules possibles /
3 jours ( Initiation+Atelier ) : du lundi 20 septembre au mercredi 22 septembre
2 jours ( Initiation ) : lundi 20 et mardi 21 septembre
1 jour ( Atelier ) : mercredi 22 septembre
Programme ind icatif des notions traitéES pendan t la formation /
Introduction à la conception Paramétrique . Rhinoscript, Grasshopper: différences et similarités . Interface
graphique de Grasshopper . Objets, Données, Listes . Opérateurs scalaires : La mathématique de
Grasshopper . Gestions des données : la logique de Grasshopper . Vecteurs, Points, Lignes, Surfaces : La
géométrie de Grasshopper . Listes, Arbres, Branches . Le dessin paramétrique: exercices divers et exemples
. Références, Bibliographie, Support de cours . Ateliers d’architecture et design paramétrique (3ème jour) .
Moda lité de la formation /
Venir avec un PC portable équipé de Rhinocéros version 4.0 SR 7 et de la dernière version du plug-in
Grasshopper (téléchargeable sur www.grasshopper3d.com).
Le coût du stage est de 350 € HT/jour par personne.
Réserver votre place dès que possible car les places sont limitées à 10 participants maximum.
Inscriptions et renseignements: Jacques Hababou, info AT rhinoforyou DOT com
Pour en savoir plus sur l’architecture paramétrique: www.complexitys.com…
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
them can be addressed before winter.
Bugs:
. Vector preview is great, but it doesn't refresh (clear) when you disconnect components. You must delete the component or reconnect to refresh the vector previews.
. When passing values through a note pad, note pad fails to update continuously. Moving the notepad updates the display.
. Cannot pass a notepad integer into an fx1
. Point preview in RH5 appears as large red blocks, not as red crosses. (This is an old bug, may have been fixed with RH5 update in the meantime.)
. After adjusting Graph in dialog box, graph appears to be a solid grey object until moved.
. After copying and pasting, a lot of components are broken, return nulls. Requires reconnect to recompute (haven't had this problem in a while, will see if I can find a file that recreates it)
. BIG ONE: Loading a graph mapper with a file not found creates broken file... graph mapper disappears off canvas and the output wire appears turns orange and appears to be coming from the 0,0 pixel of the canvas. This happens any time you try to port a .ghx file to another system with different drive letters/paths, etc.
Wish list:
Mass addition for vectors
Interactive domain control for Image Sampler (like with Gradient Mapper)
Allow Addition Component to handle String values (A + B = AB)
BIG ONE: Request Override for Icon display for Parameters, Wireless receiver, and script components if you change the name
BIG ONE: Add new behavior for Stream Filter and Stream Gate: Allow multiple index numbers. The Index number picks the value/object in the corresponding index position in the selected list.
For instance:
List 0: A, B, C, D, E
List 1: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
List 2: .1, .2, .3, .4, .5
Index Stream: 0, 2, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 0, 1
Results: A, .2, .3, 4, 5 (This is new behaviour and more useful than Weaving)
I have attached a GHX that includes VB components that do this, but it would be better to have GH components with I/O manager options and data matching behavior, etc.
Thanks,
Marc Syp
Knowlton School of Architecture
The Ohio State University
Columbus, OH…
curves A and B.
For each point pA on curve A,
you need the corresponding tangent vector tA on curve A, and the lists of "cone" vectors pB(j)-pA and tangent vectors tB(j) on curve B. so you have three vectors tA, tB(j) and AB(j)
these three vectors define a parallelogram thas varies along j
3d determinant of the three vectors above gives you the volume of this parallelogram. When 3dDet = 0 then it means it's flat, the vectors are coplanar. Thats what we're looking for.
So you just need to plot the curve 3Ddet = f(pB) , still for each point on A
'pB is the parameter here'
graphically solve these cuves to find the zeros and you feed back the resulting parameter in curve B. draw te line, done.
You can manage double solutions or cusps directly on the plot by using clostest point and >= conditions to kill unwanted results.
I do it twice, from crv A to crrv B and from B to A to make sure I catch start and end generatrices each time.
The videos you posted are interesting. I don't understand how it works with just 2 slider to tune the curves.
…
as passing this extra check and because of that it was running faster. It doesn't mean that the first analysis is totally wrong as it depends on the analysis case and should be checked and optimized before running the final analysis.
You can read more about radiance parameters here (http://radsite.lbl.gov/radiance/refer/Notes/rpict_options.html), and here (http://radiance-online.org/community/workshops/2011-berkeley-ca/pre...). Since you have a light-shelf I suggest you to add to the number of ambient bounces (ab).
Now back to your wish to have the analysis run faster you can comment the line hb_writeRADAUX.checkInputParametersForGridBasedAnalysis() inside Honeybee_runDaylightSimulation and it won't overwrite the initial values but make sure that you run a number of test cases and compare the results between the runs.
Back to your definition, it looks good to me. You could have saved yourself some time by using MassToZone component and then just adding the ceiling separately but there's nothing wrong with your approach.
The main place in the definition that can change is how you're generating the vertical fins. I imagine you can use a single set of components to generate every group of the fins but again your definition will work.
I updated your file to the latest version, which means you also need to update Honeybee and Ladybug in case you're looking to modify the file.
Hope it helps,
Mostapha…
ky.exe did not accept -p parameter and made empty sky.cal file.
----
Edit: solved run problem, Bee did not download OpenStudioMasterTemplate.idf
Get it here: https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/Honeybee/issues/119
Now get empty HDR:
C:\ladybug\prox\imageBasedSimulation>rpict -i -t 10 -vtv -vp 245.129 -226.458 20 0.405 -vd -0.549 0.656 -0.518 -vu -0.332 0.397 0.855 -vh 42.862 -vv 26.991 -v l 0 -vs 0 -vl 0 -x 800 -y 600 -af prox_RAD_Perspective.amb -ps 8 -pt 0.15 -pj 0.6 -dj 0 -ds 0.5 -dt 0.5 -dc 0.25 -dr 0 -dp 64 -st 0.85 -ab 2 -ad 1024 -as 175 -ar 150 -aa 0.200 -lr 4 -lw 0.050 -av 0 0 0 prox_RAD.oct 1>prox_RAD_Perspectiv e.unf rpict: 0 rays, 0.00% after 0.0000 hours rpict: skybright`c__ladybug_skylib_cumulativeSkies_SINGAPORE_SGP_SINGAPORE_SGP_1 : undefined variable rpict: 1020 rays, 4.91% after 0.0000 hours
----
Hi friends,
trying to get a cumulative sky image metric to run and encountered an issue with the image-based metrics component. It throws:
Runtime error (KeyNotFoundException): honeybee_materialLib Traceback: line 768, in main, "<string>" line 1442, in script
I guess this is some sort of setup issue on my end, or I messed up the definition? Any help appreciated.
Thanks,
Max
…
ace when I start running Galapagos/Octopus (below is "room orientation optimization" shared at http://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=mostaphaRoudsari&fork=hydra_1&id=Room_Orientation_Optimization&slide=0&scale=1&offset=0,0) It may take quite some time to see some results. That's fine for the above simulation. But my real challenge is, when I am going to optimize room dimension with respect to ASE and sDA calculations, either Galapagos or Octopus goes wildly and never come up with a solution. I believe the time-consuming calculation, especially sDA with higher -ab numbers, trigger the lag a lot? Any suggestion/trick to improve it?
Most importantly, based on your experience, for example to optimize window/exterior shades sizes and achieve ASE<10% and sDA>55% (LEED v.4 requirements), Octopus (due to its capacity of multiple objectives) is the only choice? Any other approaches within grasshopper?
The alternative approach in my mind as a GH beginner is as follows. But I am not sure whether it is doable. Again, your comments will be greatly appreciated.
Since all my room/window/shades dimension are controlled by number sliders, I am thinking whether a component from GH will trigger these number sliders (not necessary to be all of them but one by one) automatically. If this is possible, I can do "data recorder" to record outputs from ASE and sDA. Eventually I will have a database of the input parameters and sDA/ASE results.
Does it make sense? Is there a component which can trigger number slider output at certain step?
Many thank!
Cheney …
s levels of detail by subdividing a 6 sided cube mesh and projecting its vertices according to a referenced height map. This is one of the standard conventions for building full sizes planets. At the lowest level (0) the mesh planet is made of 6 pieces(each 32x32 resolution). The next level down (1) is made of 24 pieces... 6 divided by 4 = 24. Level (2) is 96 quads etc etc. The script will generate each quad at its sub-division level and compare edge vertices to neighboring quads. It will then make sure any shared vertices are in fact at the same projected vector. This ensures a planet quad with edge vertices that match.
The problems comes in texturing each quad.
If I build the quad as a nurb surface from points I can place the texture easily because each surface UV maps squarely to my texture map (which is also square).
If I build the quad as a mesh I cannot just apply the square texture to the mesh UVs. This is because when you unwrap the UVs from a mesh they will not unwrap like a nurb surface's UVs. Therefore to get the correct mapping I would have to manipulate each UV back to an evenly aligned array (which is 1024 points in a 32x32 resolution UV). Maya and blender have 'relax uv' and 'align UV' functions but they don't do the trick and manual corrections are out of the question. So why not skip the mesh method and use the nurb method?
I did this and there is a trade off. The nurb will accept the material texture I want with no other work on my end but when I export the object as an .obj rhino creates its own mesh to describe the nurb(with various unsatisfactory setting options). This works great up to a point because at some level the interpreted mesh will have vertices that do no match at the edges, ie .. creating visible seams in the mesh. The picture below is the nearly seamless planet at LOD(1) made of 24 quads, each with 32x32 vertice resolution and a 512x512 jpg texture running in Unity3d 5. It works but at close level there are seams. This will be resolved simply by having the next LOD(x) instantiate before getting close enough to see the seam but at core nerd level I want the seamless mesh.
So, I can make the seamless mesh but I can not realistically texture map it. I can also make the nurb surface from points and texture it at the expense of the edge vertices matching. I am at the split in the road but I want to have my cake and eat it too. Thoughts, comments, trolls...?
Thanks for reading =)
Footnote: For you pros I am not using seamless noise across the map I am using grasshopper to sew up my otherwise non perfect edges.
Other programs in the pipeline:
-WorldMachine 2
-Wilbur
-Photoshop
-Unity3d…
ive collaborative environment.
TYPE : Course module and Workshop
The event is open for anybody interested from all the fields of design, including: architecture, interior design, furniture design, product design, fashion design, scenography, and engineering.
1. COURSE MODULE (20-23 April 2014) - optional
+ type: 3 days intensive course regarding basic knowledge in parametric design (LEVEL 1)
+ software: Rhinoceros & Grasshopper
+ plugins: Kangaroo, Weaver Bird, Lunch box, Ghowl, Geco
+ achievements:
- acquainting to the components & the concept of Generative Design
- understanding the strategies in Algorithmic Design
- how to easily insert simple mathematical equation into the project to gain more control
- how to utilize proper plugins with respect to their nature of the project
- interacting with different analysis platforms such as Ecotect & remote controller
- solving several exercises with different scales( 2D- 3D ) during each phase of the workshop
2. WORKSHOP (23-27 April 2014)
A 5 day Design-Based Research Workshop exploring new techniques in Digital Architecture/Fabrication, with a specific focus on the use of generative systems and parametric modeling as tools for creative expression.
Our ultimate goal is to increasing the efficiency of utilizing digital tools in parallel with geometric performance of the primitive design agent.
+ + CONCEPT
Fashion and Architecture are both based on basic life necessities – clothing and shelter.
However, they are also forms of self-expression – for both creators and consumers.
Both fashion and architecture affect our emotional being in many ways.
The agenda of this workshop is to investigate on the overlap between these two areas of design, art & fashion.
Fashion and architecture express ideas of personal, social and cultural identity, reflecting the concerns of the user and the ambition of the age. Their relationship is a symbiotic one and throughout history, clothing and buildings have echoed each other in form and appearance. This only seems natural as they not only share the primary function of providing shelter and protection for the body, but also because they both create space and volume out of flat, two-dimensional materials.
While they have much in common, they are also intrinsically different – address the human scale, but the proportions, sizes and shapes differ enormously.
+ + + OBJECTIVES
So far, Architects have been using techniques such as folding, bending etc. to create space, structural roofs or different other structural shapes.
The agenda of this workshop goes further with the investigation of algorithmic thinking through generative tools Integrated in design.
The challenge is creating a bridge that connects these two areas of design, architecture and fashion that perform at two opposite scales.
+ + + + TECHNICAL BRIEF
In the early stages physical models and low-tech strategies will be used, allowing the participants to gain a greater understanding of materials, fabrication and assembly methods as well as simple, yet pragmatic structural solutions.
Later in the workshop these strategies will be digitalized and elaborated using software visualizing tools such as Rhinoceros and the algorithmic plug-in Grasshopper.…