uick answers. Below you will find some suggestions, but don't think of them as rules and especially don't think of them as guarantees.
1. Choose a descriptive title for your post
Don't call your question "Help!" or "I have a problem" or "Deadline tonight!", but actually describe the problem you are having.
2. Be succinct but clear in your wording
People need to know some details about your problem in order to understand what sort of answers would satisfy you, but nobody cares about how angry your boss or how bad your teacher or how tight your deadline is. Talk about the problem and only the problem. If you don't speak English well, you should probably post in your native language as well as providing a Google Translation of your question.
3. Attach minimal versions of all the relevant files
If you have a GH/GHX file you have a question about, attach it to the post. Don't expect that people will recreate a file based on a screen-shot because that's a lot of pointless work. It's also a good idea to remove everything non-essential from a GH file. You can use the 'Internalise Data' menu option to cut everything to the left of a parameter:
If you're importing curves or Breps or meshes from Rhino, you can also internalise them so you won't have to post a 3DM file as well as a GH file. If you do attach large files, consider zipping them first. Do not use RAR, Ning doesn't handle it.
It is especially a good idea to post files that don't require any non-standard components if at all possible. Not everyone has Kangaroo or Hoopsnake or Geco installed so if your file relies on those components, it might not open correctly elsewhere.
4. Include a detailed image of the GH file if it makes sense
If your question is about a specific (group of) components, consider adding a screenshot of the file in the text of the post. You can use the Ctrl+Shift+Q feature in Grasshopper to quickly create nice screenshots with focus rectangles such as this:
5. Include links to online resources if possible
If you have a question about Schwarz Minimal surfaces, please link to a website which talks about these.
6. Create new topics rather than continuing old ones
It's usually better to start a fresh question, even if there's already a discussion that kinda sorta tangentially touches upon the same issue. Please link to that discussion, but start anew.
7. This is not a 'do my work for me' group
Many of us like to help, but it's good to see effort on our part being matched by effort on your part. Questions in the form of 'I need to do X but cannot be bothered to try and learn the software' will (and should) go unanswered.
7b. Similarly, questions in the form of 'How do I quickly recreate this facade that took a team of skilled professionals four months to figure out?' have a very low success rate.
--
David Rutten
Lead Grasshopper Development
Robert McNeel & Associates…
Added by David Rutten at 12:58pm on October 1, 2013
: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Hi Clemens I've analysed a plate structure using Karamba and wanted to do a convergence analysis on results computed as a function of the number of elements.
Now, when strictly looking at the result magnitudes of internal energy (IE) and maximum displacement (w_max), it's acceptable, that their relative deviations are very small. But I cannot explain the tendencies of their graphs. From what I know, FEM should always compute underestimated results when compared to analytical solutions. So I don't understand why both the IE and w_max seem to be decreasing for an increasing number of elements.
But my main concern is the behaviour of the peak moment, it seems to be simply hill climbing untill suddenly a singularity kicks in. I initially wanted to use the peak moment as a fitness value for optimisation, but with this behaviour, I don't think that would make sense. I've attached my GH file as well.
It would be much appreciated if you could enlighten me on these subjects. Cheers Daniel Andersen
2)
Hi Daniel,
I could not run your definition because I have not all the plug-ins installed that you use.
You are basically right that the displacement should increase with a finer mesh. However the result of the shell analysis also depends on the shape of the triangles (well formed vs. very distorted). In order to test this, I think it would be interesting to use a very simple example (e.g. rectangular plate with one column) where you can easily control mesh generation. Would you like to start a discussion on this in the karamba group at http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/karamba?
It is not a good idea to use the bending moment at a singularity for optimization because the result will be heavily mesh dependent. Also real columns do have a certain diameter and modeling them as point supports introduces an error.
Best,
Clemens
3)
oh, and by the way!
Here's some relevant literature on handling peak moments: https://books.google.dk/books?id=-5TvNxnVMmgC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=blaauwendraad+plates+and+fem&source=bl&ots=SdDcwnrSA1&sig=6HulPmKNIhqKx4_rGxitteMC4CU&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwA2oVChMIg66k0LPaxgIVgY1yCh1KPAeY#v=onepage&q=chapter%2014&f=false (Blaauwendraad, J., 2010. Plates and FEM : Surprises and Pitfalls, see Chapter 14) It would be great if a feature dealing with peak moments could be incorporated in Karamba. In my work, I ended up exporting my models to Robot in order to verify the moment values. Best, Daniel
4)
Hi Daniel,
thank you for your reply and the link to Blaauwendraads excellent book!
At some point I hope to include material nonlinearity in Karamba which will help in dealing with stress singularities.
If you want you could open a discussion with a title like 'moment peaks in shells at point-supports'. Then we could copy and paste the text of our conversation into it.
Best,
Clemens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------…
en la práctica de nuevos métodos de diseño y fabricación utilizando herramientas digitales. Estos procedimientos emergentes están cambiando radicalmente la manera en que nos aproximamos al proceso de diseño en términos de concepción y producción. Los participantes serán introducidos en el uso de softwares de modelado 2d y 3d para la generación de geometrías que serán posteriormente mecanizadas in situ en una máquina de control numérico CNC de 3 ejes.
¡AL FINAL DEL CURSO TE LLEVAS TU LÁMPARA A CASA!
Profesores: Equipo MEDIODESIGN* + TOOLINGROUP*
*Official Rhino Trainners. Acreditación otorgada por McNeel, desarrolladores del software Rhinoceros.
Lugar: Mediodesign. Pallars 85-91 5-2 BCN
Duración: 16 / 20 horas
Fecha: sábado 9 / domingo 10 julio de 2011
Horario: de 10h a 14h / de 16h a 20h
Plazas: 20 participantes
REQUISITOS
< Dirigido a estudiantes y profesionales de la arquitectura, diseño y profesiones afines.
< Ordenador portátil.
< Softwares instalados. En el momento de la inscripción, los participantes recibirán las instrucciones para la descarga e instalación de versiones gratuitas (trials) de los softwares.
CONTENIDOS
< Introducción al diseño avanzado y la fabricación digital.
< Entorno Rhinoceros y sus plug-ins.
< Herramientas y estrategias de trabajo CNC.
< Materiales y sus características.
< Planteamiento del ejercicio: diseño de una luminaria
< Desarrollo del archivo de RhinoCam para el mecanizado CNC.
< Mecanizado y post-producción.
< Entrega de propuestas: Presentación en formato digital del proceso de diseño y fabricación (pdf, powerpoint, etc…) y del prototipo de luminaria realizado.
INSCRIPCIONES
Precio: 199 € Materiales incluidos.
Forma de pago: mediante transferencia bancaria.
Límite fecha de inscripción: lunes 4 de julio 2011
Se otorgará certificado de asistencia. …
sando las nuevas tecnologías de la información en la arquitectura para la gestión del conocimiento de sistemas que desarrollen estructuras sustentables, desde los procesos de diseño generativos o algorítmicos. Donde se contempla la P.O.O. (programación orientada a objetos) como nuevo lenguaje de expresión para el arquitecto-diseñador en el siglo XXI.Los talleres están pensados para sigan un hilo conductual en el que al mismo tiempo que se enseña se investiga y experimenta. Por primera vez se contará con diversos miembros de SEED como docentes de forma presencial y por video conferencia, logrando de esta forma acercar a los especialistas que se encuentran en Europa a los asistentes de los talleres sin encarecer los costos.+info:http://www.studioseed.net/ adn-methodology/
Los talleres están dirigidos a personas que tengan o quieran conseguir un perfil alto de innovación, creatividad, flexibilidad: profesionales con actividades de dirección, gerencia, proyectistas, investigadores, así como a estudiantes a partir de 5to semestre en adelante. Cada taller abarca perfiles diversos de profesionales, mientras unos están más orientados a directivos y gerencias, otros más a proyectistas.
LOS TALLERES:FAB DIG I / ITESM – CEM / Estado de México / 20 hrs / 8 – 11 al de diciembre 2011 (En este taller no se aplican descuentos ni becas)PARAMETRIC GREEN HOUSING / Colegio de Arquitectos del estado de Jalisco (Por confirmar Sede) / Guadalajara / 20h + 5h proyecto / 30 enero 2012 al 4 de diciembre 2012FAB DIG II / ITESM – CEM / Estado de México / 30h + 5h proyecto / 8 a 12 febrero 2012TERCERA REVOLUCIÓN INDUSTRIAL: TIC`s + SOSTENIBILIDAD. Procesos y paradigmas emergentes / Querétaro / 20 hrs / 15 al 18 de febrero 2012INTRODUCCIÓN AL DISEÑO GENERATIVO / UAM-azc / DF / 8hrs / 13, 14 de enero (Costo representativo $650, máximo 40 personas, mínimo 15 personas)INTRODUCCIÓN A: SCRIPTING CON GRASSHOPPER ( Python) Y PLUGINS / Estudio SEED México / Estado de México / 30 hrs / 23, 24, 25 febrero y 1,2, 3 de marzo 2012…
Added by SEED studio at 3:30am on November 24, 2011
ding is not for the faint of heart and is quite a significant understanding. However, I don't know what your dealing with, so that may be the way to go about it.
Your component if its "finished" has to supply some sort of results that are then used downstream. AFAIK there isn't a way to "prevent" down stream components from calculating until your finished. They have to get some sort of information or else they'll just be waiting. Considering how the results of those components are likely to be invalid until the information gets calculated, it may be better off supplying them with nulls until you have some actual information to give them.
Anyway, I think that you should think very closely about the structure of your routine, and specifically how it will interact and update itself. The way I'm thinking about it now is that there really isn't anything that's done in the "solve instance" function if you will. Essentially the "solve instance" function would either A) start the reading of the file if no data is found, or B) output some data if it is found. This is an extreme undersimplification, but the simpler you keep this the more likely this will work. Here are a few more "details", i guess, of how I could see this potentially working...
Thread A - Initial call to Solve Instance function
+ Check and see if there are any results that exist from reading your file - at this point there shouldn't be. These results should be stored in some sort of class variable that is accessible to both threads. It might also be a good idea to have some boolean flag that will also be accessible that represents whether your reading/writing those variables.
+ Fire a function in another thread that begins the read process. Note that you'll likely have to do this through a delegate and an invoke call, but I'm not 100% sure
+ Fill in some null values for the variables you must supply
+ Output the nulls, thus finishing the Solve Instance function
Thread B - File Read Function running in separate thread
+ Open up the file. Note that its probably a good idea just to pass the file path (as a string) between the different threads. Leave the creation of the file/text stream to the one thread that's using it.
+ Perform all the necessary reading from the file
+ Copy all your data to the variables that are accessible to both threads.
+ Expire either the solution on either the component in question or (at last resort) the whole canvas. I know expiring the whole canvas is defenitely possible, but it should be possible to just expire the one component that's doing the reading.
Thread A - "Second" call to Solve Instance after being manually expired
+ Check and see if there are any results that exist from reading your file, which there now should be.
+ Output those shared results
+ Clear the last results (or cache them in some way) so that the next time the Solve Instance function is fired, you don't find any results and reread the file.
I think there are a few variations to this that could happen too, including having a separate function for reading and writing through the data that's called using its own delegate/invoke call to make sure that its extra safe.
If you haven't already, you should really look into event driven programming, delegates, and asyncronous messaging. These are going to be the 3 things that you'll need to have a decent hold on to make sure this things works. Just to let you know, debugging these things can be a bitch.…
ght on why this is, and some ideas I have for how to improve things going forward.
MeshMachine grew out of some scripts I started developing over 3 years ago (described here), originally just with the aim of achieving approximately equal edge lengths on a smooth closed triangulated mesh.
As time went on, I kept adding things, such as ways of keeping boundaries and sharp edges fixed, different ways of controlling edge lengths that vary across the surface, and different ways of pulling to surfaces.
I was also still experimenting with different rules for the core remeshing operations, such as valence driven vs angle driven edge flips.
All of these things meant many variables in the script. I wanted to share the work so others could play with it, but not really knowing exactly what people might use it for made it difficult to simplify the interface, so I just exposed most of these variables I was using (actually there were originally even more, but I felt a component with 20+ inputs was excessive, and combined some of them and fixed others to default values).
I've never been happy with that component, but some people want a component that you can just feed a surface and get a mesh with 'nice' triangles, without too much fuss or needing to know anything about how it works, while other people want to be able to vary the density based on proximity to the border, and curvature, and attractor points and see the intermediate results, and model minimal surfaces without pulling to any underlying surface, and...
Since then I did the rewrite from Kangaroo to Kangaroo2, and through that process, and associated conversations with Steve Baer, David Rutten and Will Pearson, my ideas about how to structure libraries and make cleaner more flexible Grasshopper components changed. Much of this centres around using interfaces (in the specific programming sense, not to be confused with UI), because they allow separating code into multiple components, while still allowing to edit parts of it within Grasshopper, and other parts in a proper IDE (because I find the GH code editor is not conducive to writing large amounts of well structured object oriented code).
Towards the end of last year, Dave Stasiuk and Anders Deleuran invited me and Will Pearson over to CITA for a few days of mesh and physics coding and beer drinking. During this time I made the first steps to restructuring MeshMachine to be more modular and interface based like Kangaroo2, instead of one giant script. One of the main motivations for doing this was to make it easier to combine the K2 physics library with the remeshing. However, at the time I hadn't yet released K2, so it didn't make sense to post examples that used those libraries. After the launch of K2, this restructured MeshMachine development has been a bit on the back-burner, but this discussion and Dave Stasiuk's work with Cocoon is inspiring me to pick it up again.
Seeing how you are combining the Cocoon and MeshMachine, and how Dave is also using interfaces in his recent work suggests to me it might be possible to integrate them more smoothly...
…
ight be able to provide more insight). Whenever you run a new simulation in Radiance, it is not always necessary to re-write all of the initial simulation files from scratch. These initial simulation files include both a .rad geometry file as well as a separate .pts file that contains the test point locations. If all that you are changing in a given parametric run is the locations of the test points (like your case), it is not necessary to re-write (or reinterpret) the entire .rad geometry file. My guess is that there is some type of check for this built into either code Mostapha wrote or radiance functions that Mostapha is calling. As such, it seems that the rad geometry file is not being re-written (or re-interpreted by radiance) completely when all that you change is the test points and this actually seems to be saving you an extra 10 seconds each time that you run the component without changing the materials or the building geometry. Other times (like when you plug in custom radParameters), it seems that it re-writes (or re-interprets) the .rad geometry file from scratch since this file is probably affected by customized rad parameters.
So far, if this explanation is holding, it seems like there would be no concern on your end but I also recognize that the difference between these long and short simulations is giving you radiation results that are ever so slightly different from each other (by my estimates, they differ by about 0.2%). Compared to the other types of assumptions that the radiance model is making, though, these are mere rounding errors that probably originate from the number of decimal places in the vertices of the rad geometry file. Rather than worrying about whether your simulations are giving you the right rounding errors to give you matching results, I would encourage you to instead contemplate how much your radiance results are matching reality given all of the assumptions that you are making about the climate (with the epw file for a "typical" year) and with the number of light bounces in the radiance simulation. To give you an example, I ran your model with a higher quality of simulation type (3 ambient bounces) and this gives you results that differ by 1.1% from the original simulation that you were running with only 2 ambient bounces (this is practically an order of magnitude larger than 0.2%).
To address your unease I will say that, for a long time, I also felt uneasy any time that I encountered something that seemed unpredictable in software that I was using. Once I started coding my own stuff, though, I realized quickly that unpredictable behavior is an unavoidable aspect of all software. There is always a tradeoff between accurate results and the time it takes to get them, which produces a multitude of possible ways to arrive at a solution. Add into this complex situation the fact that you might have an almost infinite number of possible inputs to a given set of code.
Because of the unpredictable multitude of cases, there is no application that is completely free from limitations and assumptions. In this light, what ends up being more important than the actual calculation method used is the social infrastructure that is in place to help understand what is being run under the hood, hence why both Radiance and Honeybee are open source and why we try to build a robust community of support through forums like this one!
-Chris…
ly 26-27-28-29 (digital fabrication)
The third edition of digitalMed Workshop is structured as a design laboratory. Participants will learn the challenging process of producing ideas, projects and research analysis that are to be developed through specific software and concepts that emerge through the use of mapping, parametric design and digital fabrication.
The workshop will take place in the city of Salerno (Italy) and it will last 11 days structured into 3 intensive weekends: July 13-14-15 (mapping); July 19-20-21-22 (parametric design); July 26-27-28-29 (digital fabrication).
Goals and Objectives:
We aim to make clear the theoretical and technical knowledge in the approach to parametric and generative design and digital fabrication. (From collection and data management, to the manner in which these inform the geometries, to the fabrication of prototypes.)
Participants will also have the opportunity to practice the new knowledge gained in the design laboratory through project work.
Project Theme:
"Urban Field" Identify, study and analyze the system of public spaces in the urban area of the city of Salerno.
Connection, mutation, generation and evolution are the themes to be followed in project work.
Brief Description of Topics:
- Mapping. Our reality, in all its forms, has studied through concepts of the theory of Complex Systems. The techniques that will be used to study events and places of reality, will work for the management, manipulation and visualization of data and information. These will form the basis for project management and driven geometry, conducted during the second phase of the workshop.
- Parametric Design. Introduction to Rhino* and Grasshopper. Specifically, we will explain the concepts with which to work with the software of parametric design and how they function. Through these tools, we will arrive at the definition of systems of mathematical and / or geometrical relationships that are able to generate and govern patterns, shapes and objects that will inform the final design.
- Digital Fabrication. In this phase, participants of the workshop are organized into working groups. Participants have access to materials and conceptual apparatus that will take them directly to the fabrication of the geometries of the project, with the use of software CAD / CAM interface and the use of machines for the digital fabrication.
The DigitalMed workshop is organized by Nomad AREA (Academy of Research & Training in topics of Contemporary Architecture), in collaboration with the City of Salerno, the Order of Architects Province of Salerno and the National Institute of Architecture In / Arch - Campania.
Interested parties may download the Notice of Competition at the address www.digitalmedworkshop.com and fill the pre-registration no later than July 10th 2012.
PRESS OFFICE
Dr. Francesca Luciano
328 61 20 830
fra_luciano@libero.it
For information or subscriptions:
e-mail: info@digitalmedworkshop.com - tel: 089 463126 - 3391542980 …
Accidentally that was very close to some project that I have in mind (using solely C# and not components). On first sight I thought that that could be very easy ... only to discover that's not.
This definition is an over simplified version of the other mentioned (only a C# is maintained that does "preparation" work and some sort of naive "topology" checks: the yellow spheres are used as visual aids to the incompatible struts/R values combos).
You can control the 3 options available from that portion:
In a nutshell ... the Exo W behaves with an odd way (at least in my opinion). In order to get the gist of the issue stick to that portion of the def and forget the rest:
This portion of the def attempts to create an usual Exo mesh using a Line list (cleaned and user controlled as regard the min length) derived from exploded mini voronoi (i.e. brep edges). OK, I can understand the red Exo since due to the nature of voronoi breps there's more than possible the presence of small "struts" that may yield non manifold topologies.
But ... the thing is that Exo W is also red in the other mode (non Voronoi) where struts are quite big and no potential "engulfed" situations may occur:
And when the 2d Gate mode is set to Envelope ... there's cases (R values) where Exo W works as expected and cases that it doesn't.
Anyway ... if anyone has any bright idea, drop a world
best, Peter
…
project below- should I be learning Grasshopper & Rhino or just Rhino first?
I'm trying to panel modules with low tolerances- I've prototyped regular shapes like geodesics and am now looking to experiment with irregular shapes with lots of different panel shapes.
I understand some things are best done through Grasshopper when using Paneling Tools- I'm trying to figure out if I can do what I want to achive with PT alone or should do it through Grasshopper (or some other route).
I’m on the MAC WIP - The module was built in Sketchup - all the components seem to be in order as blocks though am having problems running the ptpanel3dcustom command - thinking maybe a bug in the WIP or something wrong with my input or that I imported the sketchup file the wrong way. (I dropped it in the window) - If the 3D command is run it doesn’t do anything - if 2D (ptpanelgridcustom) it crashes.
The tileing pattern - the green rectangle is a refrence. each tile contains 4 blocks with 3 more nested in each.
How the module tiles.
The other thing I'm trying to do is specify that most of the lines in the panels don’t bend/curve when they are paneled (or something like Cage Edited). For my purposes the length & angles can change while the lines must remain straight.
These images show a test tile to be panneled on a ellipsoid. When the tile is mapped to the grid the lines curve, this is an extreme example but notice allot of tiles far from the hemespheres are also bent slightly.
These two questions have me stumped the most for now. What should I look into get a better handle on these problem areas? Maybe I should try recreating the work on a windows machine? or perhaps I should get started with Grasshopper?
Thanks for reading.
Lu…