umbers behave differently from the reals, in that when they are squared they give a negative result. They are written as multiples of the imaginary unit i, which is defined so that:
i*i=-1
Complex numbers are numbers which have two parts (hence the name complex) - a real part and an imaginary part.
For example:
3+4i,
or more generally:
a+bi, where a and b are some real numbers.
Well that's a definition, but I guess you might be wondering what is the point of them - I've not said anything yet about why they are interesting and useful...
Solving cubic equations was one of their first uses, but I doubt that is what most of you are interested in.
Where they really get fun is when you start looking at them geometrically.
The Argand plane is a setting that allows us to treat complex numbers a bit like vectors.
Each complex number a+bi defines a point relative to an origin (0,0), much the same as a vector with an x and y component.
Like vectors we can add and subtract them to get a new point.
But when we multiply them, unlike vectors, we add the angles (measured anti-clockwise from the positive real axis, also called the argument) and multiply the lengths (or the modulus of each number).
This all follows naturally as a consequence of the definition of i as the square root of minus one.
........
That is just dipping a toe into the great depths.
Complex number math, and in particular complex Analysis (calculus with complex numbers) is a vast subject that I obviously can't cover much of here.
If you are interested in learning more :
The Math department at Cal State Fullerton has some very nice Complex Analysis pages.
Chapters 5 and 6 of the film Dimensions covers complex numbers very visually. You can watch it online here, or read the description here.
Complex numbers on Wikipedia
on MathWorld
Hans Lundmark's complex analysis pages
The book Indra's Pearls is about making certain types of fractals with complex numbers, and includes a good introduction, along with lots of pseudocode.
To really engage with some of the true depth and power of complex numbers I particularly recommend the beautiful Visual Complex Analysis. This was the book that made me love this subject.
I'm really looking forward to seeing more designers make use of complex numbers. I think it is a wonderful tool. It is an advanced branch of mathematics, requiring some serious study to understand, but because of its strong geometric connections, I think relatively accessible to those who tend to think more visually. Now that David has included them in Grasshopper, starting to explore them should be easier than ever.…
Added by Daniel Piker at 4:38am on November 25, 2009
can work in any node of a given hierarchy tree (loaded in your work session) by making the node "active". "Nodes" can be other things as well (like workplane, clip definitions etc).
Why to do that weird thing? Well, think any design being "flat" > meaning that all objects are placed in a single file (and in a single layer). Not that good > although the items are present you barely can handle them (because power is nothing without control, he he).
Let's go one step further: we can start classifying objects in "groups" (like a directories/files organization in any O/S). This means, in MCAD speak, creating assemblies (a void thing kinda like a directory) that contain components/entities (kinda like files).
Several steps further we end up with severely nested "arrangements" of entities (an assembly could be parent of something and child of something else).
For instance, it could be rather obvious the logical classification of a "geodetic" (so to speak) structure like this : a 40000m2 "hangar" defining some thematic park.
I mean : a void master that owns 4 equal void segment sets that own 4 "legs" that own various geodesic structural members + cables + membranes + you name it etc etc.
Each "leg" owns the concrete base (Shared) and a rather complex set of objects.
Notice that some tensile membrane "fixture" combos (see above)...act as perimeter light fixtures as well...meaning that the membrane tension plate may could be a child of a void "light" parent...or may could be a "stand alone" assembly etc etc.
These arrangements can be internal (belonging in, say, a x node within the current active file) or external (belonging in a y node within another file). If they deal with the same (topologically speaking) object they define clusters of Shared entities (or variations)- where only the view transformation matrix changes (in the simple scenario, he he). For instance the disk shown above is a Shared Assembly that owns the bolts, the plates, the tension member etc etc. Selective Instancing allows modifying some attributes without affecting the topology (i.e. the geometry).
The whole (terrible) mess is controlled by some tree like "dialog" (in Catia is "transparent") that is called Structure Browser. By controlled I mean (1) display/display mode with regard any tree member combo/selection set (assembly and/or component) in any View (2) clip state control (3) active status (for modifications/variations) (4) workplane control (5) drag and drop ownership control (6) ....
Now...what if I would chan…
this occasion, but it could be converted for DT in no time). Requires some minutes more as regards ... some things, but the usual update is due to some days.
Bad news: it's C#
Good news: User's Manual :
1. That thing (the C#, not me) after sorting (in a "sequential way", so tho speak) the panels (their order was chaotic) allows you to start the massacre by locating a focus of interest (and the user controllable +/- Range derived from it).2. The Range is variable (obviously) and takes care not to exceed the indices of the panel list (OK, that's elementary).
3. If you click the right button (Sadistic Q: where is it? he he) things are deleted and a new constantly self-updating list is your new List. Thus the massacre of panels is totally controllable. An autoZoom thing is also included (free of charge, but it's a bit nerve braking). Zoom factor is variable as well.
4. Then you move over (via the index slider) and start the massacre again. Notice the change of Range.
5. If you turn begin to false (initialization) and then begin to true > start all over again.
6. The other C# thing allows you to increment the index slider in a rather more convenient way. It's a bit weird: it uses delegates (A delegate is an object that knows how to call a method) and events (An event is a construct that exposes just the subset of delegate features required for the broadcaster/subscriber model - but don't ask what this means, he he) in order to talk with your slider (with a defined NickName) and perform the required value control.
NOTE: without realizing it you've just (indirectly) asked one of the most important questions even exposed in this Noble Forum. I hear you : what question? Well ... wait some days for the mother of all threads: "Total control in collections on a per Item basis"
may the Force (the dark option) be with you (and me)
best, Peter…
Rubicon (ii.e. some programming language [I would strongly recommend C#] > the Dark Side > years of pain + tears > hell or heaven?).
Back to that pile or worms of yours (I hate "simple" cases, he he).
0. if you want rounded lips ... Styrofoam is the only solution (+ sanding [buy a mask and some decent cigars ... path is long and hilly]). if not > goto 5/6.
1. by what means you think that you can shape Styrofoam? Do you have access to some CNC foam cutter? Or the only tools that you have are ... 2 hands and a knife? (or a thermal cutter). Accuracy is a BIG issue here: chances are that panels won't "fit". Solution is available in the forthcoming V3.
2. male "protrusions" on Styrofoam is kinda 3rd marriage > AVOID at any cost > this would end up in tears.
3. female ones are safe ... thus we need a proper "insert stripe" that must be compatible with the Styrofoam adhesive and strong enough to hold the pieces until the glue cures (it takes time, there's no instant Styrofoam adhesives around). Maybe aluminum (hard to cut by hand) or balsa (very expensive) or plywood (best option).
4. Some CNC foam cutters they can't shape the female "crevices" > be prepared (a thermal tool may(?) cut the mustard).
Note: panels made with Styrofoam look miserable because reality and theory differ. They also look miserable as well (and kitsch and miserable).
5. making the panels with (marine) plywood ... well this yields far superior accuracy and therefor aesthetics but (a) yields max panel thickness constrains, (b) introduces max panel dimensions constrains (c) yields packing issues [waste material] and (d) requires a totally different "connection" approach: it doesn't make sense to do some female crevice ... unless the plywood is very thick (expensive + heavy).
Note: Designing (pro option) self supporting "rib" reinforced sandwich composite panels ... well this is a bit far and away from what you can handle at present time.
So ... I've suspended the male/female thingy until you decide the final policy: it's the material/detailing that should dictate the method(s) AND the whole design and not the other way.
This is what we call bottom-top design approach (dinosaur Architects follow the top-bottom: disastrous + naive + naive + naive + avoid).
6. Plan ZZTop: make a stand alone autonomous perimeter frame per panel (marine plywood: imagine "thickening" these abstract beams shown inwards per panel) then join these frames by means of bolts (easy) and fill the "gaps" with Styrofoam (hmm). Note: you can reinforce the frames by a variety of means (say: a secondary "beam" sub-structure) achieving a rather elegant all overall solution.
This is the best solution by roughly 666 miles.
…
http://www.pilkington.com/) dominates the planar market. Charges "around" 1K Euros per m2 for a "plain" system. Personally in bespoke projects I design my own stuff but due to economies of scale ... they cost a bit more (but they look far more sexier, he he) . On the other hand only in a bespoke project I could dare to suggest such a solution (for a large scale building we are talking lots and lots of dollars).
3. Several scales below (aesthetics) you can find static alu systems (either structural or semi-structural):
Or hinged systems (either structural or semi-structural) capable to adapt in contemporary double curvature facades/roofs/envelopes/cats/dogs etc etc ... pioneered worldwide many years ago by my best friend Stefanos Tampakakis (everybody in UAE knows that genius man: http://www.alustet.gr/company.html):
4. With the exception of some paranoid things that Guru Stefanos does for Zaha these days we are talking about planar "facets" (obviously a triangle is such a planar facet). The current trend is: the more edges the better (humans excel in vanity matters). But achieving planarity in, say, quads (like yours) it adds another "restriction" on what you are doing. Until recently Evolute Tools Pro was the only answer. But right now ... well let's say that in short time you'll be greatly surprised by some WOW things in this Noble Forum, he he.
5. MERO (and obviously custom systems) can adapt (at almost no extra charge) in anything imaginable. But in a bespoke building ... well.. you know ultra rich people: they don't want MERO anymore since "everybody" does MERO solutions. Vanity, what else?
6. Smart Glass would become a must in the years to come: Eco-Architecture MUST dominate everything you do. On the other hand spending millions to do some extra WOW stuff (Vanity) ... it doesn't look to me very Eco-Friendly/Whatever ... but let's pretend so, he he.
7. I'm Architect but a bit different from the norm: for instance I smoke cigars (highly politically incorrect stuff) I always talk openly (ditto) and I ride lethal bikes (ditto).
may the Force (as always the Dark Option) be with you: go out there and kill them all.
best, Peter
…
noceros 3D, en caso de aprobar satisfactoriamente el examen, se les otorga un reconocimiento avalado por el CMJ y la Secretaría del Trabajo. Este workshop va dirigido principalmente a estudiantes de arquitectura; sin embargo, ya que la parametrización es una herramienta que abarca diferentes ámbitos del diseño, se pueden integrar estudiantes de diseño industrial, artistas o estudiantes que tengan relación con lo gráfico y lo formal. Al finalizar el curso, los asistentes serán capaces de manejar Rhinoceros y Grasshopper en un nivel medio, con el objetivo de que el alumno pueda continuar aprendiendo con alguno de nuestros workshops subsiguientes o de manera autodidacta.
Las personas inscritas deben tener conocimientos básicos de geometría y de preferencia utilizar algún programa de dibujo en 2D o modelación en 3d. Rhino.GetMe Rigid // Enfocado a construir un objeto de diseño parametrizado a cualquier escala, el workshop se divide en tres módulos: Módulo 1 // Rhinoceros 3D // Una sesión de cinco horas. Módulo 2 //Grasshopper // Una sesión de cinco horas. Módulo 3 // Ejercicios prácticos /Tres sesiones de diez horas c/u. Es necesario traer el equipo necesario para trabajar, se cuenta con equipos en caso de que algún alumno no cuente con laptop pero son limitados, por favor avísanos a la brevedad si lo requieres. Se les recomienda que traigan dispositivos de almacenamiento en caso de que necesitemos compartir información.
El costo del Workshop es de $6500.00 para profesionales y $5000 pesos para estudiantes.
Pre-venta únicamente para estudiantes, hasta el día viernes 29 de junio, con un costo de $3500.00 pesos.
El cupo del evento es limitado puedes apartar tu lugar y terminar de liquidar antes del 29 de junio en pre-venta, antes del 6 de junio en admisión general.
Para hacer tu registro al workshop por favor envía un correo a workshop@transformalab.com incluyendo:
Nombre
Universidad u oficina de procedencia
Teléfono móvil
En el caso de estudiantes por favor incluyan una copia escaneada de su Constancia de Estudios para hacer válido su descuento.
Una vez recibida su información se les enviará un correo con la información necesaria para realizar su pago mediante depósito bancario, y posteriormente un mail de confirmación de su participación en el Workshop.
www.transformalab.com…
is also takes place in own system. However, this action can be also carried out successfully by a foreign reference, if this considers the focused system as own. Hence, these two criteria are considered in my reflexions, to make your criticism handier for me.
First the question must be put up, how is it in your case? Of friendly manner you answer this question perpetually with the statement that you are not a partial of the system of the architecture.
Furthermore the question would be appropriate, whether an external reference (eg CAD) determined architecture. This can be answered with no, because determining and influencing are different things.
Because you stress now your criticism as a foreign criticism, within the architecture the assuption must be put up, that this criticism is not unusual new on the one hand (because this condition were also in other times like that, and presumably also always so remain) and further more a lack of goodwill in your criticism comes to light, which perhaps distinguishes an external reference.
Based on your critique, it would be also desirable in the system of the architecture if the academic rules become satisfyingly followed, even if this is no guarantor for good academic works. Nevertheless, there is an aspect which at least tolerates the evident lack in the Interdiziplinarität of the architecture. This is the classical and still valid determination of the architecture, presumably regulates not only the actions of the architects, but also those who want to become it.
Many who stand in your criticism (the students, as well as the teachers, ... ), live in the awareness that architecture is a profession that combines as many areas around the topic of Building, and the architect is even only one dilettante among the external specialists. In this determination dilettantism is revalued rather positively, because this state the architects enables to assess the facets of a complicated building project better and to form thereby the whole result positively. To be a good architect, you should have circumspect specialists around yourself. And exactly this knows the system of the architecture, because "THE ARCHITECT" helps himself with the logic of other systems (to repair on the one hand his own deficits), and to create an artificial complexity, which ultimately aims to be the complexity of human beeing.
Here "THE ARCHITECTS" becomes a quality-spoken, which currently seems the external reference (CAD, BIM) would like to take claim for themselves.
........
If would not thought about it, this might be helpful:http://www.amazon.com/The-Alphabet-Algorithm-Writing-Architecture/dp/0262515806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376920450&sr=8-1&keywords=mario+carpo"Finally, I’d like to restate my criticisms in general terms. If we are serious about moving architecture and urbanism away from purely artistic considerations and into a more rational arena, there has never been a better time than now. All of us have access to immense computational power which can be applied to problems that have been —until quite recently— intractable. But of course the garbage-in-garbage-out adage holds true; computation can be used to generate large amounts of complexity, but complexity does not equal worth. The only time when it makes sense to invoke computation in the design process is when there is some relevant data that needs to be computed" (David Rutton)I want to make it short, and just ask a few questions, and hope that the following questions are relevant also for you, and not be considered outside your system. i think that the weighting to such questions seem to be more valuable, not for the architects.1. What is wrong from a pure artistic intention?2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?4. What is purely architectural discourse?5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support? 6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ? 7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?…
hat aren’t completely there. BIM will have to continue to evolve some more if their supporters want to get to realize the promise that still is. I can’t say much about PLM, but I would say that both BIM and PLM should be considered in future developments of GH and Rhino. David has said several times that some GH limitations regarding geometry and data structures (central to interoperability) are actually Rhino limitations. So, I wouldn’t put so much pressure on David for this, or at least I would distribute the pressure also on the core Rhino development team.
Talking about Rhino vs. GH geometry, there is one (1) wish I have: support for extrusion geometry. GH already inputs extrusion elements from Rhino, but they are converted to breps. Is not a bad thing per se. The problem is when you need to bake several breps that make the Rhino file to weight several hundred MB. When these breps are actually prismatic, extrusion-like solids, is a shame that they aren’t stored as Rhino V5’s extrusion geometry in a file of just a couple of MB (I overcame this once with an inelegant RhinoScript that wasn’t good for other people). This was one of RhinoBIM’s main arguments. We can develop a structural model made of I-beams in GH using the Extrude components. We should be able to bake them as extrusions. That would also work for urban models with thousands of prismatic massing buildings (e.g. extruded footprints). Even GH’s boxes are baked as breps! Baking boxes as extrusions could be practical for voxelated or Minecraft-like models.
(2) Collaborative network support. Maybe with worksession handling, or something that aloud project team members to work on a single definition or in external references or something alike. I know there is another Rhino limitation on this, but maybe clusters are already going in that direction?
And maybe on the plug-ins domain:
(3) Remote control panel that could be really “remote”, like from other computer or device. There is an old Android App for that, but is not only a matter of updating. I mean, it would be great to control a slider with the accelerometer of an Android phone, but to have that on an iPhone will require another development team. If GH could support networks, a remote counterpart of a RCP plug-in could be developed as a cross-platform web app. I don’t know if you can access accelerometer functionality through HTML5 already, but for now, asking a client (or an spectator or any stakeholder for that matter) to control your sliders from gestures of his/her own phone would be awesome (maybe Firefly will fill that hole?).
(4) GIS support. GH already imports .shp files. Meerkat can even access the database, but what about writing to shapefiles or generating our own with databases processed/generated in GH?
(5) SketchUp support. Not only starchitects and corporations are using GH in the AEC. There are a lot of small firms, freelancers and students interested. Most of them use SketchUp for 3D modeling (not CATIA, neither Revit). Yes, you can import/export .skp from Rhino, but if GH could support nested block at bake time (also mentioned by others), it could write .skp files with complex relations of blocks (that are called components in SketchUp) and nested groups, going beyond what Rhino can export.
(6) Read/Write other formats. There are some challenges with proprietary formats that are not completely supported by Rhino, but they’re still a lot of open formats that are relevant to the fields of GH users, like stl and ply for 3D-printing. It could be nice to write mesh colors to a ply for 3D-printing a colored prototype based on GH colors. There are others, like IGES, STEP, COLLADA, etc. and 2D, like svg, odg and pdf. Some of them could offer special formatting options like custom data that the format supports but nobody uses just because is impractical to access this from direct modeling environments (but not from visual programming).
--Ernesto…
mment%3A1637953
First of all, the invalid Rhino license as seen previously has been removed, and the correct educational license we have is re-installed for this test.
The re-appearing issue is that RAM usage spikes once GH is open in Rhino. It seems that this happens when a series of large GH project files incrementally saved are stored in the same folder. Moving those previously saved large project files to a new folder seems to be able to solve this issue.
The images below explains the issue and the hypothetical solution:
1. A series of GH files were incrementally saved in the same folder previously, and the last few GH files are the ones opened most recently:
2. The total RAM usage is at the normal 5GB level once Rhino is open:
3. Once GH is open, the RAM usage spikes, and the it becomes very slow to maneuver the GH window before even opening any one of those GH files:
4. Once GH and Rhino are closed, the RAM usage drop to the previous level before the GH interface was open:
5. Now, all the incrementally saved GH files are moved to a new folder "wip" except the last one, i.e. for the last GH file, there is no other previous GH files in the same location:
6. Now, if we open GH, there is no sudden increase of RAM usage, and the 3x3 thumbnails on the GH canvas shows "missing" as those previously opened GH files are no longer in the same location as they were before:
I understand that David mentioned that the thumbnails for previously opened GH files on GH canvas will not take much RAM. Nevertheless, I'm still not sure what is causing the increase of RAM usage and slowdown of GH interface. Relocating the large project files previously saved in the same folder as the current GH file seems to be able to make this issue go away, for unknown reason ...
Appreciate if anybody experiencing similar issue can help to check if this solution works.
Thank you.
…