You can create Design Options using the Iris Layer component!
For each set of geometries that you create, you can assign a layer and define whether it will be visible or not in Virtual Reality on the
Added by IrisVR to IrisVR at 8:34am on January 23, 2017
UI - obvious if you recall who's developing MODO):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5Fd2jOgus4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SkYwpyZNJcs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK3Q9BQSK4w
A small "bit" coming directly from the US movie industry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syZdi08_Sco&list=PLIHQjWXPloi_Q...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPj_Ey2IT9E
2. Trad AEC BIM apps (AECOSim - my favorite, Revit - no thanks, Allplan - no thanks) use RPC cells for similar tasks (an RPC cell is in fact a "DataTree" of images). In the past I did several figure animations (I'm not doing this any more: boring to the max):
http://help.archvision.com/products/bentley-microstation/getting-st...
3. Maya of course does everything (it's a unique amalgam of mesh and nurbs tools), but is totally unsuitable for AEC work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVViMQHjjMw
So, assuming that you are in the AEC bandwagon, your options are:
a. AECOSim as the total "umbrella" for AEC matters.
b. MODO as the most innovative app out there.
c. Quest3D as the best VR app out there.…
this, you'll have no horizontal force at the roller, but you will have it at the pinned support. If you wouldn't, then the structure will be displaced.
Usually, in 2 dimensional structures, if you want to know if an articulated structure is isostatic (as opposed to hyperstatic, which is what you have right now) is to use the following formula:
b+c-2·n=0;
b being the number of bars, c the number of constraints you have and n the number of nodes. In your case: b=19, c=3 (displacements constrained in X, Z at your pinned support and only constrained in Z at your roller support) and n=11, so: 19+3-2·11=0.
I recommend you to download the app SW Truss, as it's very useful to check your results instantly.…
onstrates the following:
1. The definition's functionality employing HumanUI for the custom user interface.
2. The evaluation of the definition's ability to handle different point cloud data sets.
3. Video reports with the definition's results, animating subsequent per deviation step frames.
This definition calculates best fitting plane deviations. The number of manual set parameters has been minimized to two the facade per World UCS axis selection and the search width. This defines a box, which is used to crop protruding architectural details, which do not contribute to the analysis, but also ensures that large deformations are included in the calculation.
For the automation of the vertical and horizontal sections creation, the analyzed cloud is clustered, according to user defined number of 2d grid cells. The deviations corresponding to each cell are averaged in mean and median mode.
The process is displayed mostly in real time, with some speed up in some parts. Too long calculations have been omitted during video edit. The setup is responsive and benchmarks show that changing between dense point cloud data sets and facades is pretty quick (6.5-7.5M points, 25-45 deviation steps, 44x22 clusters), updates are calculated in acceptable timings (3-6 minutes).
I would like to thank Heumann A. and Zwierzycki M. who provided direct support with HumanUI and Volvox. Also Grasshopper3d forum users Maher S. and Segeren P., who contributed with Rhino viewport manipulation scripts.
More on Volvox:
http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?_id=ecaade2016_171&sort=DEFAULT&search=ecaade%20volvox&hits=2629
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/volvox
http://duraark.eu/
HumanUI:
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/human-ui?page=1&ufh=&etx=…
ay to make some real-life proper nodes for that kind of T truss (we use machined balls solely for MERO KK type of normal trusses).
3. I'll post here soon a modular demo system suitable for this case (real-life for AEC purposes - NOT for decorative/artistic stuff, I don't care about that since I'm an engineer). This would include a policy for the X struts that require a variable linkage (the X angle). and in the same time a multi cable tensioner "bracket".
4. "Basic" coding next week for T trusses ? Er ... well ... are you kidding me right? I mean that ... hmm ...
5. C# things (about 2+K) around me are classified into 2 "groups": things that are weapons in the right hands and others that serve as demos/start points for mostly abstract cases. The former are internal the latter for public use. I'll remove some sensitive lines from a T truss C# maker and I'll post it here as a "guideline" ... for ...hmm... 4.
All in all:
Provided that you have system(s) on hand (see 3) that work 100% OK in an ideal world you'll need:
A. Something that does the general topology AND (especially) clash detection. Maybe Kangaroo as well as a "first pass" with regard rigidity of the structure in case that you don't adopt a classic T "configuration" (there are many > Google tensegrity).
B. Connectivity trees that relate nodes/edges and maybe faces (say for roofing panels/curtain walls etc etc). Without them is impossible to assemble the T thingy.
C: Something that places real-life "parts" as instance definitions and/or (optional) a "tracking variants history" ability.
D. A bullet proof way to EXPORT things (on an assembly/component schema, say: STEP214 - see C) into a proper BIM app (the likes of AECOSim/Revit) and/or into a MCAD app (the likes of CATIA/NX).
E. FEA/FIM in order to validate the structural ability of the components and the T truss itself.
F. Roofing/cladding/envelope components.
G. "Interactive" cost estimation(s) - T trusses are hideously expensive at least versus "classic" trusses (exactly like a planar glazing system that retails 3++ times more than a humble semi-structural one)…
dro). The quality of the driver is also critical: hard to imagine NVidia working overnight to fix "some" driver bugs due to requests from gamers. Game cards are notoriously bad in dual monitor configurations.
3. A zillion of cores (triumph of marketing VS common sense) divided by the given clock rate ... gives you just ONE poor old core (Rhino/gh are single-threaded apps) that tries to do the job.
4. Single Xeon E5 2xxx V3 (the higher the clock the LESS the cores = better) would be my recommendation. ECC fast memory is also a must.
PS: Find a friend who operates a "loaded" H/P Z840 and test your defs.
…
Get plenty of RAM. Windows 32-bit can assign 2MB of Ram per process, so if you have lots of RAM, you can run Rhino+Grasshopper in memory all the way. I'd say get at least 4GB, and preferably 8GB. If you have a 64-bit machine, then it pays off to go even higher than that.
2) Get fast RAM. Memory access is the main bottleneck in many applications, so the faster the RAM the faster most apps will work.
3) Get a fast processor, rather than lots of slow processors. Only a few apps out there can truly use Multi-Threading (Rhino and Grasshopper cannot). These days, CPU manufacturers try and dress up multi-core CPUs as the next best thing. It is not. It is a lie. Until software can truly run on multiple cores there is no benefit to this. If rendering is a big part of your job, then it does pay off to have a multi-core machine though.
4) Get a good graphics card. I've always preferred NVidia over ATI, but there are many good ATI cards as well. You can go for a gaming card (they're cheaper), but note that these are optimised for drawing triangles. If you get a professional card, it will draw lines and curves much faster.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Robert McNeel & Associates…
on) ... the only way to do something meaningful/realistic is to follow Bentley System's way: they had 3 rendering engines (all highly problematic and archaic), a bunch of highly paid "gurus" to "develop" the dead fish and an export to Maxwell capability as well (Maxwell is very slow and has no chance VS Nexus, see below). PS: "Gurus" had no idea about Quest3D and the likes.
At the time, I was near to some permanent ban (he he) from all Bentley Forums due to my acid writings about how stupid these methods were. In fact I openly proposed to Bentley (to Ray Bentley to be exact) to fire all "gurus" involved ... and follow the outsource path.
Finally Ray (he's very smart) did the right thing: after an agreement with Luxology ... now Microstation (the core product) uses the Nexus engine (as found in Modo). This means that the Nexus is fully integrated across the whole vertical suite of BIM AEC Bentley apps the likes of AECOSim (that includes Generative Components as well).
And as everyone knows THIS is the real McCoy (US movie industry is behind that thing).
Additionally Modo has the best GUI known to mankind (US movie ... blah blah) and astonishingly innovative thinking (US movie ... blah blah).
…
ents instead of code ... it could yield a nightmare of components (and a myriad of parameters). For real-life designs I would never attempt to do this without code.
2. A certain experience with Kangaroo (or some min surf other thing since using K on these ... well may be the killing a mosquito with a bazooka thing). That said I'm a great admirer of Daniel's work. But on the other hand why not?
3. A "certain" experience with trusses/space frames.
4. A "certain" experience with instance definitions (that's not doable with GH components).
5. Years of experience with parametric feature driven MCAD apps - Image35 (NX/CATIA) for designing the real-life parts (that have NOTHING to do with "abstract" concepts).
In total I would say that a similar "app" with code (excluding the min surf/mesh thing) would require 6-10 full days of work (or even more).
BTW: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/top...…
th a graphic editor (GH) hosted in a CAD app that has primitive assembly/component capabilities and/or feature driven ops (Rhino). Did I've mentioned that Rhino is a surface modeler? (meaning the obvious).
3. Imagine a "seed" collection of assemblies related with various membrane components made in SW. Say: geometry (prior solid ops) and parameters (the feature driven part of the equation, in most of cases managed with some RDBMS). You should port these to GH (a variety of ways exist for that) and create the bare minimum of "solids" in GH as instance definitions. There's 2 main reasons to do that: (a) effectively communicating back on an assemply/component schema (via STEP) and ... (b) achieving manageable collections when in GH. These are critical for clash detection (when outlining some topology in GH, therefore NEVER work just with "curves") and "variation" control of some sort (up to a point). Of course for high class designs (where the devil hides in the details) this is NOT the best imaginable solution ... you'll need CATIA for such an integrated (all in one) procedure. On the other hand many could (wrongly) argue that CATIA is expensive (rather naive argument if a company has a certain turnover).
4. So, in general I would strongly suggest to use instance definitions of items in some sort of "intermediate state" of detail (an 100% undoable task without code) structured in such a way (classic assembly/component MCAD mentality blah, blah) that SW could take benefit of a possible modified "base topology" and proceed by finishing variations of the given assembly (feature driven stuff as usual).
5. Then export (STEP 214) back portions of the assemblies (and parameters used) to R/GH if and when this is required (for instance for BIM disciplines ... but Rhino is not a BIM app, nor it would ever be).
6. If you are familiar with code matters ... start thinking the whole puzzle that way, if not my advise is to find someone to design such a "procedure" (say an "app") using solely code, but this is not a task for the inexperienced by any means.
best, Peter…