her than an exotic type.
It is available on food4rhino and the source code is available on bitbucket. It is free for use under the GPL license. Contributions and suggestions are welcome.
It's secondary purpose is to provide tools for creation and streaming of point clouds with common scanning techniques (Kinect V1, V2 and OpenNI2). This is made possible due to the speed increases afforded by the use of the point cloud class. For example, a full point cloud from a Kinect V2 is released in approximately 10-20ms on standard machines, which is more than enough for most purposes. A multi-threaded KD-Tree is also implemented to allow very fast spatial searching.
Alternatives
Firefly offers an extensive suite of tools dealing with vision and image processing, including Kinect streaming. However, in some cases interpreting the stream as a point cloud is more useful (and often faster!).
Volvox offers an extensive suite of tools dealing with Point Clouds, and if conventional use is your ambition it is very fully featured and highly recommended.
There are some notes about interoprability on the Wiki: https://bitbucket.org/camnewnham/tarsier/wiki/Interoperability
If you have suggestions about how the overlap and interoperability may be improved between these plugins please post below.
…
Added by Cam Newnham at 6:19pm on December 21, 2016
an almost planar tissue (your case) can cause a variety of issues up to the undo able state (metal parts/components grow in size as well for no reason). See forces estimated by FF below.
2. Therefor I strongly suggest to consider Plan B (a) mastermind a secondary "anchor" capability in order to achieve a far more stable system (b) use a mount design that can support this (and comply with the attractor concept of yours). Here's a variable mount custom system (mostly machined AND not cast) that is suitable for the scope (Rhino reads the stp file OK .... but makes a colossally big file - thus I attach here the original).
3. On first sight lot's of things in this system appear "odd". For instance: is it stable? Why these double cables are used? How far can be adjusted? (that's a classic case for feature driven parametric design - not doable with Rhino).
4. This concept (strut axis exported only) is tested in FORMFINDER and some other far more complex membrane apps that I use quite often (not RhinoMembrane). Here's is what FF tells us about:
Observe a different kind of "stress" when this is converted to radial type:
5. If you insert the stp file to the Rhino file provided (exactly as exported from FORMFINDER - no mods of mine of any kind) you'll see what goes where (and why). That way the usage of double cables is rather obvious (and a lot other things - for instance the way that the struts achieve "equilibrium", see the slots in the base mount plate.
6. If this approach is worth considering your definition requires some serious rethinking (far more simpler/manageable with the drawback that the real parts they are "static" they can adjust only as far this particular solution allows them to do - controlling them parametrically is clearly impossible with the current state of R/GH capabilities).`
All in all: this case works because the cables push the anchor points downwards and the struts push them upwards.
more in a while
…
reaky thing consisting from triangulated "modules" (i.e an assembly out of this, this and that) where the exterior edges ARE always under tension (= SS 304/316 cables OR nylon) and the interior ones MAY be under compression ( = steel, aluminum, wood, carbon) OR ... some of them ...may be under tension. Bastardized T trusses deviate a bit from theory ... but who cares? (not me anyway). T trusses have many variants (but as the greatest ever said: Less is More).
2. Large scale T for AEC is the art of pointless since it costs around the GNP of Nigeria. Here's some indicative components from a module of a multi adjustable TX system costing (the module) ~ the price of my Panigale (Google that):
The above is mailed to a friend who has MIT (yes, that MIT: the top dog) on sight ... therefor he needs some appropriate "credentials", he he.
3. The distance that separates the above with the demo TDT node provided is around 666.666 miles - but we don't care: we are after Art not some testimony to vanity.
4. On purpose I've used a smallish ring to give you a clear indication upon the constrain numero uno in truss design: CLASH matters.
5. You'll need:
(a) A decision related with the tensioners (classic Norseman + SS cables or nylon machined thingies?).
(b) A machinist who can do elementary stuff (like the adapters) and can weld this to that (the "ring" for instance). His abilities must be 1 in a scale of 100. If the fella has a computer (not a CRAY) and he knows what 3dPDF is (hmm) ... well ... use that way to communicate with him PRIOR designing anything: He must agree on the parts BEFORE the whole is attempted (as a design in GH or in some other app).
(c) A carpenter with a wood lathe for the obvious. BTW: BEFORE doing any TDT attempt > ask the carpenter about the available wood strut sizes. Against popular belief DO NOT varnish the wood (use exterior alkyd/oil stains from some top maker like the notorious US company PPG).
http://www.ppgpaints.com/products/paints-stains-data-sheets
(d) Good quality cigars (and espresso) plus some classic music (ZZTop, PFloyd, Cure, Stones, U2 etc etc) during the assembly.
(e) Faith to the Dark Side (see my avatar).
May the Force (the dark option) be with you.…
rella - Revit/AECOSim etc etc) then scripting is the only way to do business. In fact Dynamo/Generative Components would be your main parametric app ... but GH can offer a thing or two as well.
Other than that here's a very brief explanation upon the "steps":
1. Using connectivity trees (faces to edges, edges to faces, faces to faces) ...
2. ... Find the "internal" edges (meaning edges that are connected to more than ONE face) and store them in a tree. Doing this find the smallest edge as well (for defining the "module" of the pts divisions minus the start/end offset). Used an object type tree since I store the indices of the adjacent faces as well (an object type is a "general" container that can hold cats, dogs, numbers, bananas etc etc ... with the cost of un-boxing when an item is to be used [Note: un-boxing costs time but in this very simple case we can afford the "luxury"]).
NOTE: if you observe the paths on that tree you'll notice that they correspond 1:1 to the indices of the related edges in the EList List (of type Curve).
3. Loop withing the "interior" edges and define the coplanar vectors per edge related with the 2 adjacent faces. These vectors are the Cross Product (Google that) between the edge direction and the normal per face (at u/v: 0,0). Divide the edge (taking into account the start offset AND the ratio of the edge length/ minEdge [as derived from phase 2 as above]). Using these points create a "zing-zag" polyline and store it in the same path as the OEM edge.
NOTE: The polyline is not planar since each teeth is laying to the corresponding adjacent face plane (if the Brep Faces are not planar more "smart" stuff is required).
From this point (not included in V1):
4. Using Face to Edge connectivity data: IF a path exists (in the polyline tree as in 3 above) with the given index sample this polyline as Curve ... if not get the OEM Curve (case: "boundary"/perimeter Brep Faces). Join the Curves (take provision to report failures) and project them to the corresponding Brep Face plane (case: planar face) or ... to some suitable "mean" plane. Define a planar Brep out of the newly created closed planar Curve and extrude it (actually the Brep Face of it) both sides at once for doing a "solid". If Brep Faces are not planar ... well things are a bit more complicated (not nuclear science ... just another approach is required).
In fact ... is a bit more challenging than that since there's assembly tolerance AND clash issues around ... but this is the "general" idea anyway. …
ts connectors and slots that allow CNC machining the facets and connectors for assembly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34OvgflJEmI
We developed this construction methodology earlier this year while working on a large scale parametric structure for Midburn, the Israeli Burning Man. While doing so I used grasshopper to generate the facets for the geometry, while a friend on the team (Matan Zohar) wrote a javascript app that translated the mesh into connectors and slots for CNC manufacturing. You can see more about the project here:
http://www.shlomimir.com/triped/
I wrote this component as an exercise in learning rhinoscript and python, with the purpose of bringing the functionality into the grasshopper workflow. It's now to the point where it is working for triangle and square welded meshes while outputting the connectors and slots as an unorganized list.
Questions and To Do List
1. I'm new to object oriented coding and functions, and basically just wrote the whole thing as a series of conditional loops with two dimensional arrays holding the data. Planning on restructuring this better, would love any tips.
2. Right now outputting the connectors and slots on the input mesh itself in 3D, planning on setting this up layed out on one plane to organize for cutting. I was wondering if there are any existing tools for this or if I need to do this manually.
3. Labeling connectors and slots. Is there anyway to output text from python that can be later baked into the rhino for labeling?…
st shortest path. The guiding splines would work like a forcefield so that paths are "drawn" towards them with a user defined strength and radius of influence.Since each path is basically independent, it should be relatively straight forward to multithread. I downloaded the C# code for the pathfinding node and have to see if I'm up to it.
Would also be interesting to know how far away the first beta of a multithreaded GH 2 is.
I also had some hopes when "Fabric Engine" showed a demo of a Rhino exporter, since its "Canvas" is an extremely optimized node system that's fully multithreaded and optionally uses the GPU, which could be interesting to explore for some heavy lifting if they for instance would attach it to GH. But I guess it does not make much sense for them as a target.
Above image uses 20000 random points. In Softimage XSI ICE this would not be much, since it's nodes are fully multithreaded and optimized for huge numbers of particles and point deformation. In GH, with anything above 500 points, things get rather "meditative".
Illustrator takes up to half an hour after each and every change to colour, line style, blending mode etc. I have one even more complex file with over 3 GB size and there Illustrator (CS6 x64) goes into some kind of trance and after some hours of thinking moves on to some advanced psychotic, catatonic state to never fully return... ;-)So usually I run it in the background while doing something else...
I recently tried different other vector graphics apps (Inkscape, Affinity Designer, Xara) but they were even worse if they were able to open the files at all. Maybe I should give Corel a try too.
Cheers and thanks for your offer! Your work is a major inspiration for me while learning Grasshopper!
Tom…
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…
ake a network of lines (i.e. a graph) and make a Plankton Mesh, from which you can use Cytoskeleton to make a solid mesh (and then smooth it with Weaverbird).
Works with ngons (polygons with 3 or more sides). Other examples I found only worked with tris and quads.
Works on open or closed surfaces
While these examples start with a surface, you could start with a network of lines and make a patch surface
This is meant for 2D networks/surfaces. I haven't attempted filling a 3D volume. My guess is this wouldn't work as it would require a non-manifold mesh that Plankton wouldn't handle.
Note similar results could be achieved with the following:
TSplines
MeshDual (dual of a tri mesh, not as much freedom/control)
Working backwards, here is the GhPython script from Will Pearson that builds a Plankton Mesh from vertices and faces. The vertices are a list of 3D coordinates, the faces are a tree a lists, with each list containing the indices of vertices that form a closed loop. From Will, "Plankton only handles manifold meshes, i.e. meshes which have a front and a back. This orientation is determined by the "right-hand rule" i.e. if the vertices of a face are ordered counter-clockwise then the face normal will be out of the page/screen."
# V: list of Point3d # F: tree of int
import Grasshopper appdata = Grasshopper.Folders.DefaultAssemblyFolder
import clr clr.AddReferenceToFileAndPath(appdata + "Plankton.dll")
import Plankton
pmesh = Plankton.PlanktonMesh()
for pt in V: pmesh.Vertices.Add(pt.X, pt.Y, pt.Z)
for face in F.Branches: face = list(face)[:-1] pmesh.Faces.AddFace(face)
These vertices and faces are precisely the output from Starling. Starling takes in a list of Polylines which form the (properly oriented) face loops.
The polyline face loops can be generated...
Directly from Panels on a surface using LunchBox
Using any network of lines/curves on a surface (curves will need to be converted to polylines before Starling)
The latter was achieved using the Surface Split command, then converting the face edges (converted to curves) into polyline loops to represent faces.
…
). It deals with the potential possibility to port GH into AEC fields (real-life AEC fields, nothing to do with academic thinking). The bad news are that the smart AEC sector is occupied solely by Bentley/GenComp – expect soon Revit/Dynamo as well (not to mention CATIA). The good news are that there’s millions of designers/engineers/industrial designers out there who could be interested for a 3rd alternative.
Intro: Well, in the old days (when men had mustache and muttonchops) AEC design performed in a nice top-to-bottom sequence (kinda like a vector) : the Big Man (aka The Brain) did some sketches (with crayons) and the rest (known as the “others”) struggled to make The Idea a reality. Today things are different, mind. Or they should be different. Or may be different. Or whatever. The big easy:For a zillion o reasons (AEC matures, PLM, cost, outsourcing, sustainable engineering…add several more) this vector like process of the past is like a Brown motion these days: Right down the moment that you (or your team) “sketch” The Big Idea … another team design simultaneously (i.e. in parallel) the components (parts) that compose the whole. This is the so called bottom-to-top design mentality. So the whole and the parts meet in some "middle point" instead the later being dictated by the former. In quite a few occasions parts dictate the whole (cost, cost and cost being the main reasons). The more a design is contemporary the more this bottom-to-top thing plays a critical role. Ignore it and have a very big time (sooner or later).The bad news:If you accept the above…well GH – at present phase - is not ready for contemporary AEC work. At.All.3 Main reasons for that:1.You can’t use parametric parts (i.e. nested blocks to speak Rhino language) into a given definition (in this case attached : truss nodes, connection flanges, mount plates, cable tensioners, planar glazing components, roof skin components…etc etc). This is obviously a Rhino domain.2.You can’t bake a given solution in such a way that the Rhino file is structured (i.e. assemblies of nested blocks). Or you can do it theoretically writing some VB/C code – but the core of the matter is that corresponding components are MIA. That means that you can’t export anything useful actually into established AEC oriented apps and/or established MCAD apps (for doing/calculating the parts for real-life production).3.The GH process can’t being interrupted. Imagine defining, say, a building “envelope” in GH and then …er…use Evolute tools in order to optimize things (say quad planarization and the likes). Then …continue in GH for more detailed work. Then design the parts as in 1 above. Then back to Evolute. Then back to GH.So…if anyone is interested I would be glad to start the mother of all debates and/or some kind of crusade (GH for President, that is).PS: This definition is a WIP thing – more refined stuff to follow (in particular a complex canopy tubes pre-stress system).
PS: Tree8 components are used sporadically.
PS: Use Saved Views
May the Dark Force be with us.Best, Peter …