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…
ple and/or easy.
I use GH/Rhino (really GH almost exclusively) for design. I find the parametric capabilities of GH simply spectacular. The Autocad apps are all quite good (and free) so I would have no problem recommending any of them. Meshmixer is a common starter for people new to 3D printing; it is targeted at more "free form"/artistic designs that is Tinkercad, which is more oriented for geometric/engineering/architectural designs. Sketchup is also a good place to start with 3D design; it used to be owned by Google but is now owned by a 3rd party company.
For slicers I've tried them all and have settled on Craftware. It's free and available at https://www.craftunique.com/craftware. For backup to that (it is still a beta product) I use Simplify3D (very seldom) but it costs $150.
If anyone cares I have uploaded an updated version of the Stepwell GH file; I tweaked it a bit to make it a little simpler and to make the base thicker so it would be more robust when printed. The dimensions of the part are large so it has to be scaled down to fit a particular printer. This is easily done with any slicer. The STL file from Rhino still has to be fixed; as exported it would print with no bottom - and I haven't figured out why that happens.…
Added by Birk Binnard at 12:36pm on February 14, 2016
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
ject that involves the design of an app that allows people to interact with a 3d model through some sliders.)
Ok, imagine you have a symmetrical shape like the one i drew:
What I intend to do is to have different 3 sliders that allow me to adjust the 3 distances (x, y, z) independently of one another.
-1st question: my idea is to draw the curves in rhino, then use the "divide" and "list item" components to extract the points I need. Is it correct? :D
-2nd question: the "move away from" component can be used in a symmetric way?
(I try to be more specific: with only one slider, can I move both points 5 and 6 simultaneously about the axis i drew?)
-3rd question: is there a way that allows the curves to reshape themselves as I move the slider related to the distance between a couple of points?
I hope I have been clear ;) I would greatly appreciate any help you can give me!
Matteo…
logic in the script body. Now it works OK. Feeding all the right data required to Kangaroo is entirely trivial.
Happens now : create some "filters" about if a given cone is a classic one (suspended from a triad of high points == make triads of cables etc etc) or an inverted one (pulled from the ground == do something about that, anyway). This means find some interactive way to alter the cones data tree on a per branch basis (a slider access branches > the offset is altered > cone "type" > ...).
Just checked the P thing : it's all clear now (DeBrep).
That said I work in a smoke build on some MCAD app that does the following : when you hoover over a tool ... the underlying method is exposed and ... you can find what is where in nanoseconds.
Anders: I've looked at the Brep.Trim before posting this ... but .. well I can't get the gist of it (anyway the split loop did the job).
... If the Cutter is closed, then a connected component of the Brep that does not intersect the cutter is kept if and only if it is contained in the inside of cutter....
…
ee. That said these things (masterminded by a certain David R) are not bad at all ... but if you write code that is "supposedly" transferable (kinda) to other CAD apps ... well ... I would strongly recommend the other classic nested C# collections.
2. The HLP method is one out of many: for instance for a better approximation of the required fitted plane we can use the divide Curve method etc etc.
3. GH components use (in most of cases) methods exposed in Rhino SDK > get the thingy and start digging into the rabbit hole. Of course David did some other components as well that use "less" classic SDK methods (if at all).
4. HLP is a classic approach to count the beans in nurbs curves. Of course I could use PolyCurves and recursive explosion blah, blah ... but here we are not after segments (at least at present time). On the other hand if that was a Faceted Dome (planar Polylines) ... well getting the nodes that way it could be an overkill (this means business for V2).
5. Mastermind some plane orientation policies in order to finish(?) the @$%@$ thing. For instance: Given Plane plane, define a Plane.WorldXY at plane.Origin and section these 2 > then get the cross product (sectionVector, plane.ZAxis) for the new orientedPlane Y axis etc etc (this presupposes that any plane Z axis points "outwards": use Dot Product and a center point as apex etc etc).…
ime runs out, of unexplored planets. These masters of gravity risk their lives for the adrenaline, dodging gigantic rocks that could hit their ships crashing into planets and no hope that they can be rescued.
Requires Kangaroo and Human (and in full with Firefly).
Goal of the game
You have four minutes to get six stars and reach the goal. Or die trying.
If a satellite hits you, you will leave fired.
The game has three types of control
1 Using the keyboard (requires Firefly). 2 With an external device such as a smartphone or tablet (requires Firefly and TouchOSC app). 3 Using the mouse, from the grasshopper interface.
Download files
Gh, 3dm, touchosc and textures.
Video
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/video/space-riders…
nd me to kill him but give him my regards anyway) is still around in BirdAir Italy ... talk with him.
3. Hope that you understand that designing the "details" means some decent MCAD app + FEA + this + that. "Fusing" this with some abstract graphic editor like GH ... is ... er ... impossible (in real-life, you know, he he ). Generative Components on the other hand may qualify but requires a lot of time in order to fully master it (approx 2-4 years).
4. FormFinder ... well ... that's utterly Academic but on the other hand ... (good luck).
http://www.formfinder.at/main/software/team/
5. http://tecno.upc.edu/cotens/software.htm
6. This is the second best (after the BirdAir internal stuff) but costs an arm and a leg
http://www.ndnsoftware.com/
7. This is a !%$!%$ in the !%$%!$:
http://www.sofistik.com/no_cache/loesungen/fem/leichte-tragwerke/
My realistic (low cost) advise:
use K1/2 (especially if you are after "parametric" exploitation(s)) ... and then diversify tasks: stuff for the structural department, stuff for whom claims that he can(?) design the "details" ... whilst be in a constant contact with the membrane provider (and in fact: the contractor for doing the real thing as well)
…
y to heaven (or hell) is full of pain,frustration and tears. In plain English: if you are not totally committed (and willing to pay the heavy price) ... well ... what about forgetting all that freaky stuff? (the best option, trust me)
Note: 99% of beginners dream to learn programing in order to make geometry. But the truth is that this is the least (and rather the most insignificant) that you can achieve especially when working in teams with lot's of CAD/MCAD apps (and verticals) in the practice of tomorrow (bad news: tomorrow is already yesterday).
Anyway: How to go to Hell in just 123 easy steps
Step 1: get the cookiesThe bible PlanA: C# In depth (Jon Skeet).The bible PlanB: C# Step by step (John Sharp).The bible PlanC: C# 5.0 (J/B Albahari) > my favoriteThe reference: C# Language specs ECMA-334The candidates:C# Fundamentals (Nakov/Kolev & Co)C# Head First (Stellman/Greene)C# Language (Jones)Step 2: read the cookies (computer OFF)Step 3: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)...
Step 122: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)Step 123: Open computer > burn computer > computers are a bad thing (not to mention the Skynet trivial thingy).May The Force (the Dark Option) be with you.
…