, Engineer and Researcher from France with broad programming experience. He is the author of the City in 3D Rhinoceros plugin for creation of buildings according to geojson file and with real elevation. Guillaume already created a new component: "Address to Location". It enables getting latitude and longitude values for the given address:
2) Support of Bathymetry data: automatic creation of underwater (sea/river/lake floor) terrain. This feature is now available through new source_ input of the "Terrain generator" component. Here is an example of terrain of the Loihi underwater volcano, of the coast of Hawaii:
3) A new terrain source has been added: ALOS World 3D 30m. ALOS is a Japanese global terrain data. Gismo "Terrain Generator" component has been using SRTM 30m terrain data, which hasn't been global and was limited to -56 to +60 latitude range. With this addition, it is possible to switch between SRTM and ALOS World 3D 30m models with the use of source_ input.
4) 9 new components have been added:
"Address To Location" - finds latitude and longitude coordinates for the given address.
"XY To Location" - finds latitude and longitude coordinates for the given Rhino XY coordinates. "Location To XY" - vice versa from the previous component: finds Rhino XY coordinates for the given latitude longitude coordinates. "Z To Elevation" - finds elevation for particular Rhino point. "Rhino text to number" - convert numeric text from Rhino to grasshopper number. "Rhino unit to meters" - convert Rhino units to meters. "Deconstruct location" - deconstructs .epw location. "New Component Example" - this component explains how to make a new Gismo component, in case you are interested to make one. We welcome new developers, even if you contribute a single component to Gismo! "Support Gismo" - gives some suggestions on how to make Gismo better, how to improve it and support it.
5) Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component now supports all units, not only Meters. So any Gismo example file which uses this component, can now use Rhino units other than Meters as well. Thank you Antonello Di Nunzio for making this happen!!
Basically just forget about this yellow panel:
This panel is not valid anymore, so just use any unit you want.
6) A number of bugs have been fixed, reported in topics for the last couple of weeks. We would like to thank members in the community who invested their time in testing, finding these bugs and reporting them: Rafat Ahmed, Peter Zatko, Mathieu Venot, Abraham Yezioro, Rafael Alonso. Thank you guys!!! Apologies if we forgot to mention someone.
The version 0.0.2 can be downloaded from here:
https://github.com/stgeorges/gismo/zipball/master
And example files from here:
https://github.com/stgeorges/gismo/tree/master/examples
Any new suggestions, testing and bug reports are welcome!!…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 5:13pm on March 1, 2017
via MIDI controllers.
my idea is to link PureData to GH via UDP. why pure data? cause' i can relate data like GH to generate numeric relations (and link it to audio generation)
so far i got PD and Processing to talk, but i can't get to grasshopper.
i use this definitions to make pd and processing to talk http://ubaa.net/shared/processing/udp/ and this GHX to get the data to GH http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/attachment/download?id=2985220%3...
i got this data from this post but the GH definition doesn't work for me. i have tried LAN definitions and "the engine" as well but they both freeze, even if i send data thru processing or PD.
i have a lot of questions at this time
1.- why processing tells me that i am getting the data from diferent ports, while i'm using 6000?
2.- why in the UDP definition i get no data out, even if it should say something like "waiting fordata/port/etc.." that's defined in the C# capsule
3.- is there a direct way to get midi data (key and CC) to GH
i also tried to use firefly to get the data via COM port. i know you can do this trick in processing but i just don't know how.
well. if anyone could help me i would share the results here (since it's a magister, results shoud be very interesting)
UDP has allways been a unsolved issue on other posts. maybe we could work it out ;)
Thanks…
Added by jota aldunce at 8:43am on September 28, 2010
en la práctica de nuevos métodos de diseño y fabricación utilizando herramientas digitales. Estos procedimientos emergentes están cambiando radicalmente la manera en que nos aproximamos al proceso de diseño en términos de concepción y producción. Los participantes serán introducidos en el uso de softwares de modelado 2d y 3d para la generación de geometrías que serán posteriormente mecanizadas in situ en una máquina de control numérico CNC de 3 ejes.
¡AL FINAL DEL CURSO TE LLEVAS TU LÁMPARA A CASA!
Profesores: Equipo MEDIODESIGN* + TOOLINGROUP*
*Official Rhino Trainners. Acreditación otorgada por McNeel, desarrolladores del software Rhinoceros.
Lugar: Mediodesign. Pallars 85-91 5-2 BCN
Duración: 16 / 20 horas
Fecha: sábado 9 / domingo 10 julio de 2011
Horario: de 10h a 14h / de 16h a 20h
Plazas: 20 participantes
REQUISITOS
< Dirigido a estudiantes y profesionales de la arquitectura, diseño y profesiones afines.
< Ordenador portátil.
< Softwares instalados. En el momento de la inscripción, los participantes recibirán las instrucciones para la descarga e instalación de versiones gratuitas (trials) de los softwares.
CONTENIDOS
< Introducción al diseño avanzado y la fabricación digital.
< Entorno Rhinoceros y sus plug-ins.
< Herramientas y estrategias de trabajo CNC.
< Materiales y sus características.
< Planteamiento del ejercicio: diseño de una luminaria
< Desarrollo del archivo de RhinoCam para el mecanizado CNC.
< Mecanizado y post-producción.
< Entrega de propuestas: Presentación en formato digital del proceso de diseño y fabricación (pdf, powerpoint, etc…) y del prototipo de luminaria realizado.
INSCRIPCIONES
Precio: 199 € Materiales incluidos.
Forma de pago: mediante transferencia bancaria.
Límite fecha de inscripción: lunes 4 de julio 2011
Se otorgará certificado de asistencia. …
ding is not for the faint of heart and is quite a significant understanding. However, I don't know what your dealing with, so that may be the way to go about it.
Your component if its "finished" has to supply some sort of results that are then used downstream. AFAIK there isn't a way to "prevent" down stream components from calculating until your finished. They have to get some sort of information or else they'll just be waiting. Considering how the results of those components are likely to be invalid until the information gets calculated, it may be better off supplying them with nulls until you have some actual information to give them.
Anyway, I think that you should think very closely about the structure of your routine, and specifically how it will interact and update itself. The way I'm thinking about it now is that there really isn't anything that's done in the "solve instance" function if you will. Essentially the "solve instance" function would either A) start the reading of the file if no data is found, or B) output some data if it is found. This is an extreme undersimplification, but the simpler you keep this the more likely this will work. Here are a few more "details", i guess, of how I could see this potentially working...
Thread A - Initial call to Solve Instance function
+ Check and see if there are any results that exist from reading your file - at this point there shouldn't be. These results should be stored in some sort of class variable that is accessible to both threads. It might also be a good idea to have some boolean flag that will also be accessible that represents whether your reading/writing those variables.
+ Fire a function in another thread that begins the read process. Note that you'll likely have to do this through a delegate and an invoke call, but I'm not 100% sure
+ Fill in some null values for the variables you must supply
+ Output the nulls, thus finishing the Solve Instance function
Thread B - File Read Function running in separate thread
+ Open up the file. Note that its probably a good idea just to pass the file path (as a string) between the different threads. Leave the creation of the file/text stream to the one thread that's using it.
+ Perform all the necessary reading from the file
+ Copy all your data to the variables that are accessible to both threads.
+ Expire either the solution on either the component in question or (at last resort) the whole canvas. I know expiring the whole canvas is defenitely possible, but it should be possible to just expire the one component that's doing the reading.
Thread A - "Second" call to Solve Instance after being manually expired
+ Check and see if there are any results that exist from reading your file, which there now should be.
+ Output those shared results
+ Clear the last results (or cache them in some way) so that the next time the Solve Instance function is fired, you don't find any results and reread the file.
I think there are a few variations to this that could happen too, including having a separate function for reading and writing through the data that's called using its own delegate/invoke call to make sure that its extra safe.
If you haven't already, you should really look into event driven programming, delegates, and asyncronous messaging. These are going to be the 3 things that you'll need to have a decent hold on to make sure this things works. Just to let you know, debugging these things can be a bitch.…
ght on why this is, and some ideas I have for how to improve things going forward.
MeshMachine grew out of some scripts I started developing over 3 years ago (described here), originally just with the aim of achieving approximately equal edge lengths on a smooth closed triangulated mesh.
As time went on, I kept adding things, such as ways of keeping boundaries and sharp edges fixed, different ways of controlling edge lengths that vary across the surface, and different ways of pulling to surfaces.
I was also still experimenting with different rules for the core remeshing operations, such as valence driven vs angle driven edge flips.
All of these things meant many variables in the script. I wanted to share the work so others could play with it, but not really knowing exactly what people might use it for made it difficult to simplify the interface, so I just exposed most of these variables I was using (actually there were originally even more, but I felt a component with 20+ inputs was excessive, and combined some of them and fixed others to default values).
I've never been happy with that component, but some people want a component that you can just feed a surface and get a mesh with 'nice' triangles, without too much fuss or needing to know anything about how it works, while other people want to be able to vary the density based on proximity to the border, and curvature, and attractor points and see the intermediate results, and model minimal surfaces without pulling to any underlying surface, and...
Since then I did the rewrite from Kangaroo to Kangaroo2, and through that process, and associated conversations with Steve Baer, David Rutten and Will Pearson, my ideas about how to structure libraries and make cleaner more flexible Grasshopper components changed. Much of this centres around using interfaces (in the specific programming sense, not to be confused with UI), because they allow separating code into multiple components, while still allowing to edit parts of it within Grasshopper, and other parts in a proper IDE (because I find the GH code editor is not conducive to writing large amounts of well structured object oriented code).
Towards the end of last year, Dave Stasiuk and Anders Deleuran invited me and Will Pearson over to CITA for a few days of mesh and physics coding and beer drinking. During this time I made the first steps to restructuring MeshMachine to be more modular and interface based like Kangaroo2, instead of one giant script. One of the main motivations for doing this was to make it easier to combine the K2 physics library with the remeshing. However, at the time I hadn't yet released K2, so it didn't make sense to post examples that used those libraries. After the launch of K2, this restructured MeshMachine development has been a bit on the back-burner, but this discussion and Dave Stasiuk's work with Cocoon is inspiring me to pick it up again.
Seeing how you are combining the Cocoon and MeshMachine, and how Dave is also using interfaces in his recent work suggests to me it might be possible to integrate them more smoothly...
…
ight be able to provide more insight). Whenever you run a new simulation in Radiance, it is not always necessary to re-write all of the initial simulation files from scratch. These initial simulation files include both a .rad geometry file as well as a separate .pts file that contains the test point locations. If all that you are changing in a given parametric run is the locations of the test points (like your case), it is not necessary to re-write (or reinterpret) the entire .rad geometry file. My guess is that there is some type of check for this built into either code Mostapha wrote or radiance functions that Mostapha is calling. As such, it seems that the rad geometry file is not being re-written (or re-interpreted by radiance) completely when all that you change is the test points and this actually seems to be saving you an extra 10 seconds each time that you run the component without changing the materials or the building geometry. Other times (like when you plug in custom radParameters), it seems that it re-writes (or re-interprets) the .rad geometry file from scratch since this file is probably affected by customized rad parameters.
So far, if this explanation is holding, it seems like there would be no concern on your end but I also recognize that the difference between these long and short simulations is giving you radiation results that are ever so slightly different from each other (by my estimates, they differ by about 0.2%). Compared to the other types of assumptions that the radiance model is making, though, these are mere rounding errors that probably originate from the number of decimal places in the vertices of the rad geometry file. Rather than worrying about whether your simulations are giving you the right rounding errors to give you matching results, I would encourage you to instead contemplate how much your radiance results are matching reality given all of the assumptions that you are making about the climate (with the epw file for a "typical" year) and with the number of light bounces in the radiance simulation. To give you an example, I ran your model with a higher quality of simulation type (3 ambient bounces) and this gives you results that differ by 1.1% from the original simulation that you were running with only 2 ambient bounces (this is practically an order of magnitude larger than 0.2%).
To address your unease I will say that, for a long time, I also felt uneasy any time that I encountered something that seemed unpredictable in software that I was using. Once I started coding my own stuff, though, I realized quickly that unpredictable behavior is an unavoidable aspect of all software. There is always a tradeoff between accurate results and the time it takes to get them, which produces a multitude of possible ways to arrive at a solution. Add into this complex situation the fact that you might have an almost infinite number of possible inputs to a given set of code.
Because of the unpredictable multitude of cases, there is no application that is completely free from limitations and assumptions. In this light, what ends up being more important than the actual calculation method used is the social infrastructure that is in place to help understand what is being run under the hood, hence why both Radiance and Honeybee are open source and why we try to build a robust community of support through forums like this one!
-Chris…
Accidentally that was very close to some project that I have in mind (using solely C# and not components). On first sight I thought that that could be very easy ... only to discover that's not.
This definition is an over simplified version of the other mentioned (only a C# is maintained that does "preparation" work and some sort of naive "topology" checks: the yellow spheres are used as visual aids to the incompatible struts/R values combos).
You can control the 3 options available from that portion:
In a nutshell ... the Exo W behaves with an odd way (at least in my opinion). In order to get the gist of the issue stick to that portion of the def and forget the rest:
This portion of the def attempts to create an usual Exo mesh using a Line list (cleaned and user controlled as regard the min length) derived from exploded mini voronoi (i.e. brep edges). OK, I can understand the red Exo since due to the nature of voronoi breps there's more than possible the presence of small "struts" that may yield non manifold topologies.
But ... the thing is that Exo W is also red in the other mode (non Voronoi) where struts are quite big and no potential "engulfed" situations may occur:
And when the 2d Gate mode is set to Envelope ... there's cases (R values) where Exo W works as expected and cases that it doesn't.
Anyway ... if anyone has any bright idea, drop a world
best, Peter
…
project below- should I be learning Grasshopper & Rhino or just Rhino first?
I'm trying to panel modules with low tolerances- I've prototyped regular shapes like geodesics and am now looking to experiment with irregular shapes with lots of different panel shapes.
I understand some things are best done through Grasshopper when using Paneling Tools- I'm trying to figure out if I can do what I want to achive with PT alone or should do it through Grasshopper (or some other route).
I’m on the MAC WIP - The module was built in Sketchup - all the components seem to be in order as blocks though am having problems running the ptpanel3dcustom command - thinking maybe a bug in the WIP or something wrong with my input or that I imported the sketchup file the wrong way. (I dropped it in the window) - If the 3D command is run it doesn’t do anything - if 2D (ptpanelgridcustom) it crashes.
The tileing pattern - the green rectangle is a refrence. each tile contains 4 blocks with 3 more nested in each.
How the module tiles.
The other thing I'm trying to do is specify that most of the lines in the panels don’t bend/curve when they are paneled (or something like Cage Edited). For my purposes the length & angles can change while the lines must remain straight.
These images show a test tile to be panneled on a ellipsoid. When the tile is mapped to the grid the lines curve, this is an extreme example but notice allot of tiles far from the hemespheres are also bent slightly.
These two questions have me stumped the most for now. What should I look into get a better handle on these problem areas? Maybe I should try recreating the work on a windows machine? or perhaps I should get started with Grasshopper?
Thanks for reading.
Lu…