if you can't resolve the details ... well ... they do that as well. For Europe contact my good friend Peter Stevens. (BirdAir).
In general: PRIOR designing ANYTHING (at all) you must formulate some kind of collaboration with a specialized manufacturer. Problem is that ... er ... if they don't know you they don't give much attention (this is a rather "closed" AEC sector).
On the other hand if your membrane is bespoke designing the components (anchor plates, masts, tensioners etc etc) and/or using bespoke ones available in the market (not many around. mind)... well ... this IS the core of the matter. Rhino is NOT suitable for that kind of stuff by any means.
Kangaroo 1/2 is the way to go when inside GH. Other apps especially the "pro" ones are very expensive. BirdAir has the best software for that matter but is mostly an internal product available as well only for few "strategic" partners as they call Architects who can design that kind of stuff.
Other than that have some fun:
Tensile Membranes test3 - Grasshopper
And this ... well ...is about NOT doing it:
Need help about using Kangaroo for form finding
…
chitecture for quite a while. I've been through all versions of 3DS Max and I've used Maya and Softimage as well. In the last 3 years though, I started using the 3D apps as an architectural design tool, but you must already know that this it not the main purpose of them.
That's when a friend of mine introduced me to GH and I was blown away by it. This is like THE perfect thing for design. I'm currently designing a high-rise for a city here in China where I live and it has a very intricate twisting, thus I took the leap and started learning GH, but I think they time it'll take me to learn it will far exceed the time of this deadline so I did the whole model in 3Ds Max, but it was a real pain in the ass moving every individual row of vertices manually, and leading myself but nothing but rudimentary techniques to make it look right, and still, it doesn't look as I want and when having to modify it, it's just another full exhausting day at work.
Anyway, that's briefly the reason. I'm hoping to learn a lot from here. If you have any essential sources (preferably updated) from where I can push my knowledge do let me know please!
Thanks!!…
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
ll geometry.
The difference with programs like Inventor is that they are made for production, regardless of the fabrication method. I won't go into detail about that, and instead focus on the modeling process.
In this little model, the starting point actually is a bit obvious, the foundation.
The only contents in the 3dm file are 27 lines. These indicate the location of each footing, and the direction of the tilt of each column. Everything else is defined in GH with the use of numbers as input parameters.
Needless to say, instead of those lines you could obviously generate lines and control the number of columns and panels, hence establish their layout, with any algorithmic or non-algorithmic criteria you please. That marks a major difference between GH and Inventor.
You can generate geometry with Inventor via scripting/customization (beyond iLogic), with transient graphics for visual feedback similar to GH's red-default previews. However Inventor's modeling functions are not set to input and output data trees. I won't go into detail on that, but suffice to say that the data tree associativity of GH was for me the first major difference I noticed. I've used other apps with node diagram interfaces like digital fusion for non-linear video editing since the late 90's, so the canvas did not call my attention when I first started using GH.
Anyways, here's a screen capture of the foundational lines:
In the first group of components, the centerlines of the rear columns are modeled:
And the locations in elevation for connection points are set. Those elevations were just numbers I copied from Excel, but you can obviously control that any way you please. I was just trying to model this quickly.
The same was done for the rear columns:
The above, believe it or not, took me the first 5 hours to get.
Here's a screen capture of what the model and definition looked like after 4 hours, not much:
If you're interested, next post I can get into the sketching part you mentioned, which is a bit cumbersome with GH, but not really.
I wouldn't say that using GH to do this little model was cumbersome, it just needed some thinking at the beginning. You do similar initial thinking when working with a feature-based modeler.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 12:44am on February 24, 2011
ts (other than Kangaroo - if required). Anyway notify if you want some taste of them (but they are a bit "chaotic" : too many parameters etc etc ...). Warning: Almost all are written with MCAD apps in mind: GH is used SOLELY as a graphical editor/topology solver and just makes the simplest instance definitions possible in order to send them (via STEP) to some MCAD (Frank G uses CATIA/Digital Project as you may probably know, CATIA is my favorite toy as well) for actually designing the components and composing the whole.
2. "Equality" in modules (panels/glass/lexan) it's not an issue (other than aesthetics). I mean cost wise since modules are prepared via CNC these days. I wouldn't suggest to waste your time with "equality" puzzles and completely ignoring the big picture (real-life) that is FAR and AWAY from aesthetics. I mean: assume that I of someone else or Daniel can "equalize" things (up to a point): Is this sufficient for designing a similar real-life solution? In plain English: don't get occupied by the tree and ignore the forest.
3. As regards the frame in most of cases some MERO type of modular system is used: either a "flat" dome-like arrangement or a classic spaceframe or a hybrid system [push: tubes, pull: cables]. Hybrids are the most WOW (and costly) for obvious reasons. When properly done (and combined with a planar glazing system) THIS is the star of the show.
4. As regards the skin we use either "hinged" custom stuctural/semi structural aluminum extrusions (they can adapt to different dihedrals up to a point) or classic custom planar SS16L systems that also can adapt to dihedrals. A custom planar glazing solution is hideously expensive, mind (say: 1K Euros per m2).
5. Smart Glass tech (changes light transmission properties under the application of voltage) is gradually penetrating the market especially in future bespoke designs.
So in a nutshell: these are "pro" territory - if I may use the term, thus I don't expect to find ANY similar "turn-key" solution in the very same sense that you can't find a tensile membrane turn-key solution.
Meaning that practices that can do it ... er ... they keep the cookies for themselves. …
le] demo):
1. A transformation Matrix is a 4*4 collection of 16 values that "deform" 3d things according the values in the cells. The orthodox way is to deploy "cells" left to right and top to bottom. Rhino does the opposite (why?) hence we need the transpose method.
2. Since "translate" and "perspective" are "symmetrical" the transpose boolean toggle (within the C#) "flips" rows with columns ... so we get perspective or move.
3. When in perspective "mode" the vanishing points are computed internally within a min/max limit (per X/Y/Z axis) thus avoiding the usual havoc with "extreme" perspective angles (very common "glitz" in pretty much every CAD app - CATIA excluded). Vanishing points (and limits) are oriented with respect the pos/neg value of a given control slider.
Note: slider values are percentages between min/max (mode: perspective) and/or actual values*100 (mode: move).
4.In order to start mastering the whole thing: don't change anything: just play with these 4 sliders selected:
5. The 123 sardine cans challenge: even with DeusExMachine = true (see inside C#: that one redirects the transformation per BrepFace and then joins the breps instead of applying it on a brep basis)... odd things (and/or invalid breps) occur ... thus what is required in order to make things working 100% ??.
he, he
best, Lord of Darkness …