opening a simple file with 30 curves being lofted took like 2 minutes to complete and Rhino crashed afterwards saying:"Windows is out of memory and Rhino will close after you click ok."evethough I still had 7GB of free physical memory and my page file is set also to 16 GB just to be shure...I then switched to Rhino 5.0 Version 5 SR14 64-bit (5.14.522.8390, 05/22/2017) which also had big problems to display the lofted surface. It was unresponsive after loading the file for a minute and a half and then it normally displayed the lofted surface. Every move of camera takes at least 10 seconds to update, but at least it runs. GH profiler says the loft took only 12 ms (90%).
So I'm suspected my graphics card, because the Windows are just three weeks from a clean install. I've also updated my Graphics Driver from the stock Windows one to Intel HD one, but nothing changed.Is there something I'm missing??? What can I try next?My specs:CPU: i5-3320M @ 2.60 GHzRAM: 16 GBGPU: Intel HD Graphics 4000, driver: 07.04. 2017, version 10.18.10.4653
…
Added by Šimon Prokop at 10:39am on October 21, 2017
up structural systems in the parametric environment of Grasshopper. Participants will be guided through the basics of analysing and interpreting structural models, to optimisation processes and how to integrate Karamba3D into C# scripts.
This workshop is aimed towards beginner to intermediate users of Karamba3D however advanced users are also encouraged to apply. It is open to both professional and academic users.
Earlybird (until May 10):
Professional EUR 750 (+VAT)
Educational EUR 375 (+VAT)
Course Fee:
Professional EUR 825 (+VAT)
Educational EUR 415 (+VAT)
Course Outline
Introduction & Presentation of project examples
Optimization of cross sections of line based and surface based elements
Geometric Optimization
Topological Optimization
Structural Performance Informed Form Finding
Understanding analysis algorithms embedded in Karamba and visualising results
Complex Workflow processes in Rhino3d, Grasshopper3d and Karamba3d
Places are limited to a maximum of 10 participants with limited educational places. A minimum of 4 places are required for the workshop to take place.
The workshop will be cancelled should this quota not be filled by May 31st.
The workshop will be taught in English. Basic Rhino and Grasshopper knowledge is recommended. No knowledge of Karamba3D is needed.
Participants should bring their own laptops with either Rhino5/Rhino6 and Grasshopper3d installed. A 90 day trial version of Rhino can be downloaded from Rhino3d.
Karamba3D ½ year licenses for non-commercial use will be provided to all participants.
…
e and i get it. If you have time check the attached papers we published a while ago in relation to the contribution of thermal mass in the reduction of temperature in residential buildings. See the nice contribution of the heavy TM or the lower one for light TM.
As for the solarHeatCapacity, your description (of the 50W) is derived on a 1 Facade/Floor ratio and fully glazed. The only way to reduce it is to increase the ratio (bigger facade area). Which is not recommended (energy losses), but this is a different issue. So, roughly, we can say that 50 is the lower value. If i have less glazing area this number will be higher (right?)
I want to define a value list of "architectural situations", so it is easy to explain and understand. One situation can be:
"Ratio facade/floor 1 & Fully glazed" = 50
"Ratio facade/floor 1 & Half glazed" = 75
"Ratio facade/floor 1.5 & Fully glazed" = 30
"Ratio facade/floor 1.5 & Half glazed" = 50
"Ratio facade/floor 0.75 & Fully glazed" = 70
"Ratio facade/floor 0.75 & Half glazed" = 90
Makes sense for you something like this?
I also defined a value list for the timeConstant like this:
Light Building (Mobile home) = 1Medium-light building (Cement tiles on floor) = 4Semi Heavy Building (Concrete floor + Tiles) = 8Heavy Building (Concrete floors/ceilings + Heavy external and internal walls) = 12
As for the first 5-10 cm effective TM in general my assumption is that you take half of the mass to your space and half to the space above/below you. Will be interesting to do a parametric study on just the thermal mass, uninsulated and insulated to see what the depth limits effectivity will be. Interested in doing such a study together? Can be a nice work even for publishing.
Thanks a lot ... again,
-A.…
393&xg_source=activity
In this case we see a geometrically approach, which doesn’t works efficient, because it required knowing how they behaviors together before, and I think it is not the ‘really behaves’.
To make the structure ‘really behaves’ I tried use kangaroo and the result works very well! As you can see I simply give the 2-set reverse UForce, and then they start to rotate until they found their equilibrium. That means 90 degree rotation. I was wondering what we can do to make a endless-rotation. I am mean 360 degree or more like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4owFczeqqMQ
By the way, I try to give supports which allow a horizontal movement only (Just curious how we could keep the anchor-movement horizontally and in the same layer, for example like usual supports for compression ring…). I use the AnchorXYZ, but Kangaroo-Engine seems don’t accept its output.
So maybe some one knows a better solution?
…
Added by Jon to Kangaroo at 7:40am on March 11, 2014
problem later) to fit more shapes that are otherwise won't fit in.
On the example below horizontal rectangle couldn't fit in but its rotated analog could and thus was placed in.
Later, when placed shapes are used to generate frames, because of this rotation, the position of the starting points changes and because of the approach I use to generate the frames some angle values are attached to the wrong corners, this brakes the frame shape and looks like this (on the left the frame of sick shape and on the right the frame of the healthy shape):
Again, this happens because the angle values are assigned to the specific corners (points) and previously rotated shapes get these all messed up:
Easy fix, don't rotate the shapes, problem is, I've already baked a good number of them for later use. I'd like to avoid regeneration because it takes a lot of time and without rotation I constrict the algorithm even more.
Better fix, use a different approach, this is where I'd like to hear suggestions and kicks in a right direction. Please take a look at my definition. It works but I have a feeling like giving an amputee a job of sweeping the floor.
…
creating the structural frame, finding the endpoints, linking these endpoints with curves and afterwards lofting the surfaces between the curves.
The results were quite nice, however, the procedure is very time consuming and inefficient. There is just too much copy-pasting involved.
(see attached file: "Old Attempts.zip" )
Mesh relaxation:
I have later on used Daniel Piker's tutorials on Mesh Relaxation and realized that this might be the way to go.
The link to these online tutorials on wewanttolearn.net is:
https://wewanttolearn.wordpress.com/2011/10/22/mesh-relaxation-kangaroo-tutorial/
His tutorials, however, only deal with mesh boxes which are ideal cubes. He then joins them together in various directions, but it is under 90 degrees angle.
( see attached file: "Daniel Pikers Examples" )
What I would like to achieve:
I want my bridges to go in all directions and angles, not just under 90 degree angle.
Ideally I would like to make a square (polygon) follow a curve (which moves in all axis) at certain number of division points. I would then loft these squares into a mesh and use that shape as a mesh box. I would later use this mesh box and relax it the same way as Daniel Piker used the cubes in his tutorial. The anchor points are only the vertices of the squares which create the lofted mesh box.
( see attached file: "New Attempts" )
As you can see below this procedure works even if the curve is moving in all directions not only along xy axis. There are, however, many problems connected to it.
The problem:
Despite all the effort I cannot seem to come up with a design where I would be able to draw a random curve which would be the guideline for my mesh box and then apply this box to one definition in order to relax the mesh and create the shape that I want. Without this I am again forced into a lot of copy pasting as the final mesh box is made out of several sections.
Also is there any way I could make the final resulting mesh a bit smoother? Increasing the number of mesh faces is probably the only way, right?
Thank you guys so much for any potential help.
All best,
Luka
…
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…
uired information, a poor representation of data evolve misreading messages and by turn ambiguous responses especially with complex data. Inforgraphics are graphic visual representations of information, data or knowledge intended to present complex information quickly and clearly. In the nowadays flow of complex information, Infographics is the key for optimized visual communication. The use of infographics is an important step towards developing a pedagogical approach that draws on visuals where 90% of Information is transmitted to the brain so it is crucial to tickle the optic nerves to get people excited about data. The workshop investigates how computational tools can aid in designing and controlling complex information to be easily understood in addition to improve cognition by utilizing graphics to enhance the human visual system’s ability to see patterns and trends and much more likely to be remembered in today’s fast – paced environment. This workshop investigates multiple computational tools and techniques of developing coefficient visualization of data types including; network, statistical and hierarchal data. The workshop objective is to reconsider visual representation a promising design tool for architects, artists and designers. /// Application To apply, please follow this link to fill the application form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1HOv6c1_LzhHNJU5n_FLvuhC-Yg75HDfbEcq6TN6mulI/viewform /// Fees 1200 EGP for students / 1500 EGP for graduates and young professionals more info on the workshop webpage: http://www.encodestudio.net/#!infographics/cqvl
POSTS
…
ike using something like the Z vector, but technically you can use any vector you want. This vector will actually determine the static rotatation of all the planes, so you can control that here if you like. One important thing that I've noticed is that the closer the vector is to the plane of the curve or if its too similar to one of the tangent vectors, the more likely you'll have "flipping"
2) Take the cross product between the tangent and the static vector. This will be your first perpendicular vector, which you can use for the X component of the plane.
3) Take the cross product between the tangent and the result of the previous cross product. Use this result as the Y component of the plane. All three components (X, Y, and Z (which is the tangent vector)) are all perpendicular to each other now.
After you've done that you should have planes that decrease twisting. If your curve is not planar, then there will always be some twisting in the frames, but it will be minimal enough to use them effectively.
There also may be "flipping" within the frames, which means one (or both) of two things. First, you could have planes that have reversed their vectors, so the X vector is properly oriented, but pointing down when it should be pointing up. Second, the X and Y vectors could have potentially swapped, so that Y "should" be X and X "should" be Y. In order to check these things, you'll need to do a few tests. The first one is find out whether the vector (X or Y) of the plane your testing is pointing in the opposite direction of previous vector. The second test is to find out whether the vector (X or Y) of the plane your testing is perpendicular to the previous vector. In both cases, an angle test between the two vectors will be able to tell you what you need to know, but you will likely NEVER get exactly 180 for an opposite test or 90 for a perpendicular test. That means that you have to choose a range with which to determine that a given vector is opposite or perpendicular.
You should start testing the X vector to see if anything is wrong. If you find that the X vector is fine, then just move on because Rhino will only allow you to create right handed planes, and the Z vector (the tangent) will always be the same.
I don't believe that there's a native function within the old dotNET SDK for calculating angles, so use the example at the link below. It basically takes the arcCosine of the Dot Product of the two vectors your testing to return the angle in Radians. I'm not sure if this function is included in RhinoCommon or not....
http://wiki.mcneel.com/developer/sdksamples/anglebetweenvectors…
ed when membrane cones are invited to the party (then mesh (via Starling is the best way) the brep and send data to Kangaroo : the easiest thing to do). But patch doesn't trim the inner Loops and ... well initially I thought to find this in SDK and do the job:
Well... I confess that I can't get the gist of the Brep.Trim (as explained in SDK).
Thus go to plan B: having already the closed breps (the "cones") as cutters ... attempt a Boolean difference
but this does that (this looks to me a bit paranoid, but some reason must exist):
What I want is this:
the code that mess things is (open the script inside definition attached):
BTW: where in SDK is that DeBrep thing?
BTW: Delaunay GH syntax is still cryptic to me (but this is not an issue anymore)
I would greatly appreciate any help on that final step (to greatness).
The full working definition soon (v5: with 90% of components replaced by C# stuff).
best, Peter
…