large scale prototyping techniques. The programme continues to build on its expertise on complex architectural design and fabrication processes, relying heavily on materiality and performance. Autumn DLAB brings together a range of experts – tutors and lecturers – from internationally acclaimed academic institutions and practices, Architectural Association, Zaha Hadid Architects, among others.
The research generated at Autumn DLAB has been published in international media – ArchDaily, Archinect, Bustler – and peer-reviewed conference papers, including SimAUD (Simulation in Architecture and Urban Design), eCAADe (Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe).
Autumn DLAB investigates on the correlations between form, material, and structure through the rigorous implementation of computational methods for design, analysis, and fabrication, coupled with analog modes of physical experimentation and prototype making. Each cycle of the programme devises custom-made architectural processes through the creation of novel associations between conventional and contemporary design and fabrication techniques. The research culminates in the design and fabrication of a one-to-one scale prototype realized by the use of robotic fabrication techniques, with the aim of integrating of form-finding, material computation, and structural performance.
The programme is structured in two stages:
PART 1 – participants are introduced to core concepts of material processes, computational methods and digital fabrication techniques. Basic and advanced tutorials on computational design and analysis tools are provided. The programme performs as a team-based workshop promoting collaboration, research and ‘learning-by-experimentation’.
PART 2 – participants propose design interventions based on the skills and knowledge gained during phase 1 and supported by scaled study models and prototypes. The fabrication and assembly of a full-scale architectural intervention with the use of robotic fabrication techniques will then unify the design goals of the programme.
Applications
1) A limited number of 10 places are available. To apply, please send a small portfolio (5MB) to the Visiting School Office.2) PARTIAL SCHOLARSHIPS ARE AVAILABLE. Please send a letter of intent and a small portfolio (5MB) to the Visiting School Office.3) As this programme has a limited number of places it requires a selection process, if you are offered a place on programme, the Visiting School Office will inform you of how you can complete the registration process.
The deadline for applications is 13 AUGUST 2021.
Eligibility
The workshop is open to current architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Adobe Creative Suite, Rhino 6. No prior knowledge of software tools is required for eligibility.
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £975 per participant, which includes a £60 Digital Membership fee.Students need to bring their own laptops, digital equipment and model making tools.
…
pproach that will hopefully work. There's still the last part of putting it all together, but I figured I'd post my progress so you could play around with it if you wanted. This is kind of a lucky situation since its only single face breps and simple trims that are being worked with.
I've attached 3 definitions to this post. The first is my reorganization of your original definition, which creates the surfaces from the point grid and culls out any surfaces that are not "on" the surface so that we don't have to deal with them later down the line. This is done through a small VB component which determines whether any of the corner points lie on the surface. If it does it keeps the surface, if not, then it doesn't. The only issue with this is that in your example file, there are some surfaces which the corner points do not lie on the surface, yet the surface that they create spans the underlying surface. At this point I'm not worrying about those. You mentioned that you only want the surfaces that lie at the edge...this can be done by testing whether all 4 corner points lie on the trimmed surface or not.
The second definition is a coded version of the project function. In the example it will project to all the breps supplied, yet in the final version this probably won't be desired. Also, the direction (z axis) is hard code...this could be swapped out if desired.
The third definition is an shot at trimming a surface with an input curve (that curve happens to be projected). I tried this many ways, but found that the function RhinoCutUpSurface seamed to work alright. The other attempts at doing this directly with through functions available for OnBrep were unsuccessful and very complex. Luckily because the underlying brep is an single, untrimmed surface this function works well for us, but in situations where we have a trimmed or multiface brep we'd be up a creek with out a paddle. The function creates an array of breps, but in our case it will create essentially the same surface split by our curve and joined together as a single brep with two (possibly more) faces. All we have to do is find out which face we want to keep and duplicate that into a separate brep and pass it out of the component. In the example file I'm determining which on to keep based off of the distance from a test point to the centroid of each face.
The other option here, which would trump the need for projection or trimming, would be to extrude the edge curves through the surface in question, and use the BrepSplit function which requires two breps. There would still be the need to sort out what to keep, but if this approach were used, all the split pieces would be separate breps.
So, all the pieces are pretty much working separately, all that I have left to do is put them all together in the base definition. The only thing that is really the hump with that is determining exactly which face to keep. My idea at the moment is to find out which corner of the surface does not like on the base surface and use that to determine which face will be thrown out. This might be one of the easier ways, but will not be rock solid. The other option is to pull a test point that's on one of the faces to the base surface and the other face, then use the distance from test point to the point on the base surface and the distance to the pulled point on the other face to the base surface to figure out which one to keep.
As to sectioning off parts of the solution, you could do this in a number of ways, but here's two simple ones. In a scripting component just add a boolean value to the inputs and put the whole script inside of an if statement that looks at that boolean value. With components just add a boolean gate or a null pattern componet anywhere you want in the stream. Again, hook in a boolean toggle value, and that will stop the info from going to components that are downstream.…
s: [Mesh Brep] which used the Rhino mesher, [Mesh Surface] which create a rectangular grid of mesh faces on a single surface and [Simple Mesh] which attempts to represent each face in a Brep using a single Tri or Quad and accuracy be damned. Let's focus on the easy ones first...
[Simple Mesh] is a first attempt at providing a completely reductionist meshing engine. It was born out of a skype discussion I had with Brian James one night during the weekly Seattle RMA developer meeting. It only handles very simple cases at the moment so it's probably not all that useful, but it's there anyway just in case. If this mesher cannot handle a certain Brep face because it's too complicated it will use the native Rhino mesher for that face.
The purpose of [Mesh Surface] is to provide a single surface mesh that isn't distorted by the underlying parameterization of a surface. My approach for this actually turned out to be really slow, which is why the [Q] input is set to false by default. This mesher was never designed to take trims into account, however you get a single option [H] to control how trims interact with the mesh.
[Mesh Brep] merely channels the native Rhino mesher. You can supply meshing settings that look a little bit like the meshing settings that Rhino itself exposes. With these settings you can control how seams in breps are handled, how much the mesh is allowed to deviate from the underlying geometry, how many quads you want etc. This is the most customizable option, but even here it's totally possible you can't get what you want. For example, there is no way to enforce a mesh that contains only quads. As soon as seams are stitched or whenever trims are present, you're going to get triangles along the edges of meshes.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
.
as you can see I devided it into 3 parts.
part1: when I try to connect the new shape to the rest of your definition,the plan z,which gives the panels individually when baked(so I can work them individually)doesn't work,apparently there is something missing when I want to explode it.
that is why I connected it to the definition that I already had(part2)( the only cool part about that one is the attractor point)well it kind works,but not really(if you zoom in you can see that there are some parts overlapped and really not looking good).however I much rather your definition because of the option it gives me to work with individual panels when baked(planz).
however it's around 4 am. and I have decided to make some major changes in design (to prepare some closed and open space,I'm talking about part3 that works with the fibonacci like shape,I know it doesnt look really good,but seriously 4am.!).the major problem is that I tried to make a form like that with kangaroo so the shape would be smoother but I wasnt really able to make it with kangaroo,that's why I made it manually in rhino.I was wondering if you can help me make something like this ( not exacly like this) with kangaroo or (if impossible to be made with kangaroo)even helping me optimizing it so it doesnt look as bad,as you can see when I try to work the grasshopper definition on this shape,it gives me different panel sizes for each surface and all of them are to small compared with the overall size of the so-called pavillion(give it 200-500 sq feet (20-50 sq.m).and any suggestions about the shape would be appreciated,please forgive my basic knowledge of rhino and grasshopper,and let's say I wanted to make a shape like these(don't laugh please!)
u promised not to laugh!!!
please help me find the right way!
…
make-this-form-...
Other than that:
1. Tensegrity is a "static" thingy in the sense that you use some module (let's call it "mode") and repeat. Creating some code that does INVENT new modes for T trusses (Pulitzer/EMMY/Nobel on sight, he he) ... I would strongly suggest to forget that THIS VERY MOMENT.
2. Applying some T "mode" on something (see my examples in the above thread where I use surfaces for the T nodes) is another animal. If you intend to use Kangaroo to "relax" that something (NOT the T itself) well ... you can do it but has nothing to do with T.
3. The Kangaroo def provided is a "way" to test the "rigidity" of the T in use. It's a "post-processing" thing NOT a T solving thing.
4. I have a terrible feeling: are you saying that (a) without knowing a thing (or two) from C#, (b) without knowing K1/K2, (c) with a limited GH experience ... your goal is to write down from scratch a FEA ("Femap") thingy that ALSO does node "relaxation" ? If so ... well ... what about sky diving (without parachute) or that classic Russian roulette "game"?
PS: shown double tetra (classic) and XFrames (classic) T trusses applied in open and closed surfaces.
But of course these are abstract stupid "arrangements" utterly out of question in real-life: read CAREFULLY the discussion in the thread provided above AND also study the 3dPDF attached (with a system out of many available) in order to get the gist about what real-life means (Note: EVEN if no real-parts are used ... the node calculation is different from the abstract "star" connections pictured above - by "star" I mean that cables meet at a single point in space without any "offset" etc etc).
Moral: Seppuku
Plan Z: Skype ASAP
…
able all the components from that group.I know it's slowing down a lot, but the rhino performance is really poor on layouts. In Rhino 6 WIP it's a lot better though.
For the issue with different amount of drill holes i made an example script, how i would go for a solution to this. It's just a suggestion.
1) Do a little script that catches those holes and bake them to a separate layer.In my example i just generated them with GH.
2) Use RhinoCount (is installed with FabTools) to name the curves in Rhino by clicking one after the other. But first diable the layers, with the other geometry, so you don't accidentally click on geometry which you don't want to count.
You have 2 counters 1 for the part the second for the holes on each object. Increment the object counter if you have counted all holes of 1 object. By clicking on each hole the counter increments all by itself. Take a look at this command!
1 Click creates 1 Dot and renames the Rhino object. You can turn on/off all specific features of RhinoCount with the checkboxes. (see settings above)
And....this should be the result after some clicks:
3) If counted, you can reference the counted geometry again to GH with the counting as Datatree. (See attached GH File).
Then estimate the maximum amount of holes on one object in your drawing.Create a template with the amount of detail views and do the process from the layout tutorial again. For all objects with less holes you will have to delete the detail view which didn't have a target point or you do a sort of grouping for the hole centers and estimate the center of that group. You can be creative ;-)
I hope this helps. Good Work,
FF…
Added by Florian Frank at 7:49am on January 21, 2016
Python and install it and it should work fine.
2. You still see the image above in case 1 however you have GHPython already installed. What about that?
In this case probably the GHA component is blocked. Find GHPython.GHA on your system (usually at: C:\Users\%username%\AppData\Roaming\Grasshopper\Libraries) . Right click, go to properties and select unblock.
To make sure that GHPython is working fine on your system open the attachment file (testGHPython.gh). You should see something similar to the image below on your screen when you open the file:
If you see the something similar you should be fine to go! Try to open one of the example files.
3. You have Ladybug running but in some of the case the output is missing. You see something similar to this:
or this
This one is because you are using old version of GHPython. Close the file without saving. Download the new version and install it and re-open the file. It should work fine now.
Hope it helps,
Mostapha
…
the mesh into long strips 1 quad wide.
*I did make an alternative icon for this, but opted for the tamer one in the end ;)
The Unroller component goes along the strip face by face, rotating it into a single plane.
Note that this component will still give a result even if you supply it with non planar quads - it will just fold them along a diagonal. However, if the faces are significantly non-planar, then it won't work as well for fabricating from a smooth strip of sheet material, so it is better to try and make sure your planarizing in the relaxation part is working well.
The Unroller component also has a T input which allows you to unroll only part of the mesh at a time. This is mainly for animation purposes, and most of the time you will probably just want to leave it set at 1.
At the moment the unroller is limited to working with open strips, so if your strip forms a closed loop, you will have to split it first. Later releases should include an automatic 'loop snipper'.
The final part of the definition then takes all these strips, orients them into the XY plane, and does some very basic layout.
It's then up to you to label, add tabs, nest, laser cut and assemble!
Because of the subdivision, each strip should have an even number of quads, which can also be useful for generating interlocking tabs by offsetting alternate groups of edges. I'll try and post an example of this soon.
I hope this is helpful. It was my intention when making this that it could be a relatively quick and easy way of making smooth curved structures out of sheet material, (I'm thinking card, polypropylene, metal, thin plywood...) with a lot less fixing/connecting work than doing a similar shape with individual panels.
Thanks to all the participants in these long-running threads:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/how-to-create-nodesbone
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/skeletal-mesh*
which inspired this work, especially some of the comments by Ivan Kiryakov, Wiktor Kidziak, Giulio Piacentino, Andrew Haas and Mårten Nettelbladt.
*note also that the meshes generated using this definition can be used for developable strips, because they have the even-valence property.
I was also inspired by these papers:
http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~misha/Fall09/Liu06.pdf
http://www.geometrie.tugraz.at/wallner/strip.pdf…
hat differ in shapes, sizes and height the facade would be a mess. Some spaces need some light while other can't have any. I would like to have full freedom of creation inside the building, to make it as functional as possible. Thats why i decided the parametric "skin" solution would be best. Since the location has industrial past (factories made of brick) i decided that brick would give interesting result.
I tried creating the definition on my own but since i lack skill in GH i got some problems (especially multiplication of bricks and the diffrence between each "level" (half a brick on y axis) caused problems for me.
I post my simple sketch explaining the idea of definition i would like to create (sorry about quality):
1 - Brep - I would like to use 25x12x6cm (classic brick) but as well experiment with diffrent shapes - like the one on the right with hole inside - that would give more light. Thats why i think the best solution would be using brep for this definition.
2- Multiplication - biggest problem for me - I don't know how tall the wall would be, what will be the final shape of Brep (brick) and that's why i would like to manipulate this with sliders as well. All the walls are flat (maybe it would be easier to use surface?). As i managed to multiply the bricks easy way i don't know how to gain control over height of the wall - for example that it is 30 bricks high, but has each second row moved on x axis by the distance of 1/2 brick. I tried using Series but with no success. Could you help me with that please?
3 - Rotation - i would like to use image sampler for that so i can "paint" where i want more sun and where i dont need it at all (black and white). The rotation has to be limited to 180 degrees as well. Obviously i didn't get here yet, but i never used image sampler so if you could give me some advice how to use component and how to create such images i would be really grateful.
4 - More of a concept thing - since the connection angles differ from 90 degrees i will have to figure out how to connect the parts of the wall at sides ;).
I would like to ask you for help with the defintion, since i am totally stuck at step 2. I post what i came up with so far. Thank you for your time and help!
PS. I post an image that is pretty similar to one of options i would like to check for my building.
…
are hotter than the least overlapped parts.
I'm trying to create gradients when overlapping between closed surfaces occur. The gradient goes from the center of the most overlapped figure to the edges of the least overlapped figures.
To help understand how I'm thinking it, I will first show you my solution for one figure.
As I said in the title, it's kind of a pseudo gradient. It's a way of organising areas (rings) inside of the geometry. To achieve this I thought in creating a series of rays that then can be divided in segments, in this case 3 segments of same lenght per ray, I could get more resolution in the gradient by dividing in more thus creating more rings...
in this picture the rays are in dark red and go from the center to 4 points in the perimeter, if I wanted more resolution I could have more rays, but with this simple figure 4 is enough
the rings are in a gradient of colors from the center to the perimeter, lighter in color each time:
so when I have 2 overlapping geometries
the center of the gradient should be on the center of the most overlapped part (in red) and go to the perimeter of the pink parts
for the red figure I draw the rays from the center to its perimetry. and for the pink figures the gradient should go from the parts that are in contact with the red figure to the perimeter, something like this:
still that is something I did with rhino and it's pretty intuitive...
the problem gets worse when i have more figures and more "heat centers"
like in these examples
maybe the approach should not be with rays to create the rings... maybe with offsets..
not sure if it's not too complicated to achieve in grasshopper and maybe there's another way of creating a gradient with multiple focuses...
would aprecciate any help
cheers…