firefly, it inspired us to take it one step further and build a custom UI to control Rhino and replace the OSC app - since it was created originally for DJ's. We're not ready for a public release yet, but since this is the forum where the idea was inspired, I wanted to open up a beta to a few of you guys to try it out and get some feedback on what it's like to control a 3D CAD program from a multi-touch screen. We probably only have room for 10 or 20 people right now, as we have a limit to the number we can add, but if you're interested in trying it out, shoot me a message!Or post here, and we'll figure something out!Oleg.…
here), can eventually name them something a little more different, as they perhaps sound like they belong together much more than is the actual case.
You can find the right plugin here: http://www.food4rhino.com/app/human…
-life fabrication issues ... then ... well ... that's the reason for the Skype.
2. In general I would say that exploiting parametric "arrangements" (in the broad sense) is less than 5% of the whole ... given the fact that in real-life there's a lot of other constrains. Again using Kim's IKEA note: for instance packaging (at least for the magnitude of IKEA's business) is rather more important than ANY smart of stupid design.
3. Reliable components VS Design/Manufacturing cost IS the ultimate "fitness" challenge: this involves bottom-top design disciplines (not doable with Rhino/GH by any means) and ... well... some top dog feature driven MCAD app. Most makers/designers use the cheapo alternatives (SolidWorks/Creo etc etc) and the results ... well .. you get what you've paid for, he he.
4. Why bottom-top may you ask? (and what means this anyway?) Well ... one "connecting node" that would been made 1Z times at the minimum cost possible is a 100 times more challenging task than designing a shelve system that uses that node. See for instance A LOT of IKEA solutions (i.e. the nuts and bolts of them) that are exceptionally flimsy, very badly designed and ... well ... suitable for 1 week's usage (but there's some others that are less faulty). On the other hand IKEA actually serves the ephemeral ... thus ... this MAY be intentional (recycle > buy > recycle > buy > ...).
I buy therefor I exist.
For instance a certain IKEA mold injected "multi join node" for a given series of shelves ... it would sustain less than 5 minutes "abuse" (in case that someone would attempt to "rearrange" things). Moral: reality and theory ARE not the same thing.
I could continue until the end of Time listing "aspects" of the whole puzzle related with production issues ... but for the moment I would conclude by the following:
GH is a good "general" purpose graphic editor and Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modelling app. If you combine these 2 ... you can easily outline what you can and what you can't (or shouldn't) do on that subject.…
r visual programming tools in the games world. MS's Kodu, looks interesting. Kismet and Visual3d look even more interesting..... mainly because they are more 'interactive' or 'reactive', rather than DAG-based.
Seems like the evolution path for GH-similar apps is:
1. base 3d or CAD app based on C/C++ code.
2. Add scripting language interface
3. Add some kind of visual interface
4. Add graph sorting / propagation engine
5. Re-jig base 3d or CADD app to make managed/interpreted scripts run faster, multi-threaded.
6. Add dynamic typed language, DLR stuff
6. ....
6. Add constraints solver...?
7. Rebuild CAD display engine to be procedural at the GPU level?
Seems like there are available tools for converting scripts into some kind of flowchart. There are even visual debuggers. MS even has something called the 'Debugger Canvas'. Spreadsheet constraints.
Seems like the time is ripe for lots of new apps like GH.
…
You can create Design Options using the Iris Layer component!
For each set of geometries that you create, you can assign a layer and define whether it will be visible or not in Virtual Reality on the
Added by IrisVR to IrisVR at 8:34am on January 23, 2017
priety software). Think Kangaroo with RON 100 fuel (add some nitrous oxide).
Back to domes.
1. Obviously you know the free WinDome Bono thing...but anyway get it (code included).
2. As I said on another thread (http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/the-necessity-for-a-data-tree-manager) ... the big thing in AEC (because, for instance, nobody does domes for decoration/artistic stuff etc etc) is how to implement already designed things (see images above) within a smart stuff definition (or many).
3. Goes several steps beyond: these "breps" (to speak GH/Rhino language) are in most cases nested and some parts are "locked" for transformations some other not. That's the big thing when trying to outline real-life AEC solutions in the so called Smart applications. I think that this is not doable in Rhino since there's no way to edit (in place) a nested block.
4. Goes even further: for each custom made thing (truss nodes and the likes) ... there's a bill waiting. Meaning that the less customized a solution is (with regard industrial sourced existed parts) the more is possible for the client to sign the dotted line.
Best, Peter…
subsequently able to retain a higher level of flexibility.
In Rhino however a rectangle is defined as only a plane and two numeric intervals (one for x, one for y). The possible solutions to this would be:
Extend the Rhino SDK Rectangle3d type to include constant radius fillet corners. This can be done, but is a lot of work and will break the SDK.
Create a new type in Grasshopper which is smarter than Rectangle3d. This complicates developing for Grasshopper because now you have to keep two different types in mind whereas before only one was needed.
Remove the Fillet Radius input from Rectangle components. I like this solution because it results in cleaner, simpler code, but it does mean people may need to use two components where before one was sufficient.
Make the Rectangle type smart enough so that it can recognise filleted rectangles and undo the filleting. This is something I can do right now for Grasshopper 1.0 and it in all likelihood would not break actual existing files even though it is technically a behavioural change.
I'll try and get (4) done for Rhino 6 SR1, I might decide to do (3) for Grasshopper 2.0. I sincerely doubt that (1) will ever get done and I dislike (2).…
Added by David Rutten at 4:38am on November 6, 2017
s are carried over solely via code even for tasks related with K2 (for a vast variety of reasons mostly related with "communications" to/from other CAD apps used in a real-life BIM driven AEC pipeline [where GH plays a small role]).
If 2 is OK with you, drop a word.…
UI - obvious if you recall who's developing MODO):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5Fd2jOgus4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkYwpyZNJcs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK3Q9BQSK4w
A small "bit" coming directly from the US movie industry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syZdi08_Sco&list=PLIHQjWXPloi_Q...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPj_Ey2IT9E
2. Trad AEC BIM apps (AECOSim - my favorite, Revit - no thanks, Allplan - no thanks) use RPC cells for similar tasks (an RPC cell is in fact a "DataTree" of images). In the past I did several figure animations (I'm not doing this any more: boring to the max):
http://help.archvision.com/products/bentley-microstation/getting-st...
3. Maya of course does everything (it's a unique amalgam of mesh and nurbs tools), but is totally unsuitable for AEC work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVViMQHjjMw
So, assuming that you are in the AEC bandwagon, your options are:
a. AECOSim as the total "umbrella" for AEC matters.
b. MODO as the most innovative app out there.
c. Quest3D as the best VR app out there.…