lines, dedicated MCAD apps, BIM apps, team work AND elevators as well: if you design something "variable" and then attempt to service it via a "static way" (Revit) you'll discover that you are wasting your time. I can list you a lot of WOW towers that failed on that (elevator) matter ... but this wouldn't be polite for the designers: so let's continue.
2. The other critical thing is the system that does the skin: since "liquid" is the new WOW (it shouldn't) the task of "faceting" a facade and doing it with a system that doesn't leak (in the long term), doesn't pop the panels out of the frames and it doesn't cost the GNP of Nigeria ... well ... is not that simple.
3. It's a very common mistake for some future Architect to "skip" (even mentally) "trivial" matters like these ... but if you get used on this type of thinking you'll gonna pay a heavy price (as an Architect).
So my advise is: whilst you are after "form(s)" sketch frantically the nuts and bits of that form (not to mention ... er ... hmm... the elevators, he he).
best…
loop is a simple component
to iterate generative shapes with Grasshopper®
http://antonioturiello.blogspot.com/
RHINO OFFICIAL BLOG
FOOD4RHINO PROJECT
AEC-APPS.COM REVIEW
formance issue.
Reasons why I don't want to change the Integer parameter:
1) what about Number, and String, and Boolean, and Point, and Vector, and Line... should they also display the value? Or is the integer parameter supposed to be different from all the others?
2) what if you have multiple values inside a parameter. Should it grow to display them all? Should it grow to display only the first ten? Should it automatically switch to Icon-display?
3) would value display be a fourth kind of display type (alongside Name, Icon and App-default)?
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 10:25am on December 17, 2009
r)
2. Even cooler would be to make some kind of presentation preview. (GH disappears, rhino goes to fullscreen mode with somehow integrated remote panel). I like to watch apps/scripts made with processing, where sliders are really minimalistic.
3. Presentation preview may be optionally locked with password.
I realize that GH isnt processing, but this would be nice addition.
…
onstrates the following:
1. The definition's functionality employing HumanUI for the custom user interface.
2. The evaluation of the definition's ability to handle different point cloud data sets.
3. Video reports with the definition's results, animating subsequent per deviation step frames.
This definition calculates best fitting plane deviations. The number of manual set parameters has been minimized to two the facade per World UCS axis selection and the search width. This defines a box, which is used to crop protruding architectural details, which do not contribute to the analysis, but also ensures that large deformations are included in the calculation.
For the automation of the vertical and horizontal sections creation, the analyzed cloud is clustered, according to user defined number of 2d grid cells. The deviations corresponding to each cell are averaged in mean and median mode.
The process is displayed mostly in real time, with some speed up in some parts. Too long calculations have been omitted during video edit. The setup is responsive and benchmarks show that changing between dense point cloud data sets and facades is pretty quick (6.5-7.5M points, 25-45 deviation steps, 44x22 clusters), updates are calculated in acceptable timings (3-6 minutes).
I would like to thank Heumann A. and Zwierzycki M. who provided direct support with HumanUI and Volvox. Also Grasshopper3d forum users Maher S. and Segeren P., who contributed with Rhino viewport manipulation scripts.
More on Volvox:
http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?_id=ecaade2016_171&sort=DEFAULT&search=ecaade%20volvox&hits=2629
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/volvox
http://duraark.eu/
HumanUI:
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/human-ui?page=1&ufh=&etx=…
eaky things > thus I barely can see the point of having it (or maybe I must train the cats - in fact I'm doing exactly that these days [windows 7 - the older the better]).
Given the opportunity: happens that some top data retrieval gurus here and there are good friends (don't ask why). Well ... they are not that crazy with SSD since they claim that they are very prone to failures due to current fluctuations (unless you use some top dog UPS). Moral: stick to good old ("slow") stuff.…
d fly with a Porsche flat six).
2. Added a double (nested) Anemone thing (and the Mateusz version) and some comments.
3. Added a stupid "arm maker" cluster ... primitive/ugly/pointless - see one prototype attached about how to do it (you'll need a top feature driven CAD app for this - notice the Teflon low friction ring).
4. In order to "adapt" the cluster arm you need some "stretch" capability (orient, scale et all are the 1st step). Of course putting the cluster into the 2*loop is the art of pointless (Mateusz misinterpreted my bitter comments as regards the "slow" thing, I had absolutely no intension to recreate "live" the arm).
be the Force (the dark option) with you all.…
glass panel).
2. This actually means that the parts on duty they don't differ that much. Meaning that we can use an "average" size (and "local" topology) acting as the Jack for all trades.
3. Meaning that we can effectively solve the abstract topology with an abstract app the likes of GH and then place in properly defined coordinate systems all the real-life bits and nuts ... closely "emulating" a pro solution (that could "adjust" the parts as well).
4. This means that one particular C# needs more lines of code since as it is it defines cable axis on a per nod to node basis ... but in fact these are defined as the min segment between curves (circles to be exact).
5. Additionally the end part of each strut differs depending on how many pairs of stabilizing cables are used (either 2 or 1). Meaning some lines of code more for defining the proper coordinate systems for the instance definitions.
6. This is the reason that I've postponed mailing to you the 4 horsemen (because PRIOR finishing the whole you MUST define what parts to use: the classic bottom-top design approach).
But in order to receive the Salvation (aka: Apocalypse) you MUST answer correctly to a simple puzzle:
Provided that money is no object, pick your car:
1. Ferrari 245 (Less is more)
2. Lancia Stratos (Lethal).
3. Cobra 427 (Men only)
4. Ford GT40 (Mama mia)
5. Ariel Atom (Mental)
6. Aston Zagato GTB4 (Sweet Jesus)
7. Fulvia HF Fanalone (THE racer)
8. Lambo Miura (Enough said)
9. Lotus Elise (Just add lightness)
10. Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione (In red)…
th a graphic editor (GH) hosted in a CAD app that has primitive assembly/component capabilities and/or feature driven ops (Rhino). Did I've mentioned that Rhino is a surface modeler? (meaning the obvious).
3. Imagine a "seed" collection of assemblies related with various membrane components made in SW. Say: geometry (prior solid ops) and parameters (the feature driven part of the equation, in most of cases managed with some RDBMS). You should port these to GH (a variety of ways exist for that) and create the bare minimum of "solids" in GH as instance definitions. There's 2 main reasons to do that: (a) effectively communicating back on an assemply/component schema (via STEP) and ... (b) achieving manageable collections when in GH. These are critical for clash detection (when outlining some topology in GH, therefore NEVER work just with "curves") and "variation" control of some sort (up to a point). Of course for high class designs (where the devil hides in the details) this is NOT the best imaginable solution ... you'll need CATIA for such an integrated (all in one) procedure. On the other hand many could (wrongly) argue that CATIA is expensive (rather naive argument if a company has a certain turnover).
4. So, in general I would strongly suggest to use instance definitions of items in some sort of "intermediate state" of detail (an 100% undoable task without code) structured in such a way (classic assembly/component MCAD mentality blah, blah) that SW could take benefit of a possible modified "base topology" and proceed by finishing variations of the given assembly (feature driven stuff as usual).
5. Then export (STEP 214) back portions of the assemblies (and parameters used) to R/GH if and when this is required (for instance for BIM disciplines ... but Rhino is not a BIM app, nor it would ever be).
6. If you are familiar with code matters ... start thinking the whole puzzle that way, if not my advise is to find someone to design such a "procedure" (say an "app") using solely code, but this is not a task for the inexperienced by any means.
best, Peter…