and visualizing data for ENVI-Met 4 software. ENVI-met is a cutting edge software used to analyse microclimate interactions in urban environment. Tens of different analysis types can be performed on the chosen building context. From Mean radiant temperature and local Wind speed to CO2 concentration and Pollutant dispersion in the air. To generate the building context for Ladybug ENVI-met components, Antonello used Gismo:
An example similar to results in upper screenshots has been been attached below. To run it, Gismo, Ladybug and Human plugins need to be installed. To perform the ENVI-met analysis, download ENVI-met 4 Basic for free, and install it. Steps in the .gh example file have been labelled from 1 to 11. They mostly consist of just setting a boolean toggle to True. An exception to this are steps 6 (set the folder path of your ENVI-met application install folder), and 8 (running the ENVI-met simulation). Step 8 has been explained in detail in the photo attached below (step8.jpg). Special thanks to Antonello for developing and guidance on ENVI-met application and components! Post questions below if you have any issues!…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 11:30am on March 25, 2017
tic systems and iterated function systems.
https://www.food4rhino.com/app/chimpanzee
https://matousstieber.wordpress.com/
#chimpanzee3d
I would appreciate any feedback, suggestions or reports of bugs. Please email me at matous.stieber@outlook.com.
To install:
Delete any previous versions of Chimpanzee you have installed
In Grasshopper, choose File > Special Folders > Components folder > Unblocked the files
Restart Rhino and Grasshopper
Chimpanzee changelog
Aug 31, 2019 - Chimpanzee 0.2.
Update to add 38 new components including hyperchaotic systems, maps and strange attractors. Additional features and options added including exponent input to Mandelbrot Set and Burning Ship.
Nov 11, 2018 - Chimpanzee 0.1
initial release
Further development may include Mandelbulb, Quaternion Julia Set, etc.
…
in App store.
2. Modelo now supports VR! check out this video:
3. We've added a specular option in the rendering settings. So now you can have your design rendered a little bit shinny-er.
4. There is also a "filters" option in this panel, with which you can get some interesting image post processing effects. We are expanding this filter library, if you have any suggestions, please let us know.
5. This one is very important and has been requested by our customers for a long time. Now when you upload a model, you can grab the reviews(3d comments, screenshots,sketches) from your previously uploaded model! This works really conveniently if you use Modelo for your design review/presentation, cause you don't have to recreate the same 3d anchor views every time you made some changes to your design.
6. Also, our developer API is almost ready, which means if anyone is interested in developing a grasshopper plugin that works with Modelo, they can!
There are some many other updates and bug fixes happened. I don't want to list all of them here. Definitely stay subscribed with our newsletter. Modelo is thrived to grow into a more comprehensive platform! If you have any good ideas about our platform, please do not hesitate to let me know!
Here is our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCufBShhLtUQepsit9ilI-AA
Cheers
Qi…
Added by Suqi to Modelo at 1:24pm on October 18, 2016
y, he he) on that market segment (trusses and the likes) ... well ... you can't do anything in real-life without code. Too many reasons to list them here (indicative: connectivity Trees, member clash detection, instance definitions, managing solution variations talking to MCAD apps that do the parts in real-life ... blah, blah). If this is just an abstract exercise ... forget all the above.
3. Using a // (to the ground) "inner" surface (the 2 edges, that is) is tricky because without code you can't be sure where the whole procedure failed (a red component means nothing).
4. The weird big "component" provides ways to do things with surfaces (most notably: rebuild) that are not available as native components. Rebuild is critical when dividing surfaces
have fun, best, Lord of Darkness…
s for some solution "as it is" no matter the cost? (that's an extra stupid approach, very old fashioned). Do you use EvoluteTools Pro and/or Kangaroo for "optimization" ?
2. What is the FEA/FIM stuff in use? Do you expect "from/back" interactions? (If this is not doable ... increase this or that etc etc).
3. Do you validate real-life components with FEA/FIM? By what means you design these components? - present and/or future (inside Rhino?). This makes things "interesting" in a variety of ways (we need to extensively talk about that - Skype). The problem is that Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modeling app and thus ... a "certain" bottleneck arrives in no time: In the CATIA world you design ("MANUALLY") a parametric history driven component that "complies" to his parent "directives" (say: the Topology) and/or "imposes" his rules to his parent. This is what we call top<>bottom design approach (would become a standard across the AEC industry pretty soon: in around 123 years give or take some). This is far and beyond from what Rhino can do - but we DO make real-life things don't we?
4. Are all these things under a BIM umbrella ? What BIM? What type of details (blue prints) you deliver? (or you just make the thing?).
5. By what means cost is restricting/encouraging the solution? By what means you get feedback from component(s) cost that is outsourced? (i.e. outside your company). Do you monitor all things via some RDBMS? (that's Data Base).
6. What are the long term plans for dealing with such solutions? Using what apps (even in theory for the moment).…
simple, there are many symetries in 3 main planes. So I used arcs rotated 45° from the main planes and I generate a pentagon which was mirrored and rotated many times.
At the end there are 24 pentagons and 8 hexagons so 32 faces, 54 points/vertex and 84 edges.
It could generate some others tessalation styles
…
as the design table? I think this could be 'drawn' and constrained in Inventor in a lot less time. I know the GH model would have a lot of flexibility, but in this case, what can you do with it that wasn't provided by an Inventor model?
Only the 27 lines mentioned were modeled in Rhino, the rest is modeled with GH.
The 5 hrs involved thinking about the approach, defining vertical lines, tilts, elevations, pitch of the roof, intersections.
Once I had decided what my approach would be, and tested the logic with those first lines, points and data path arrangements, it only took one more hour to get to this:
Which is actually quite fast, compared to MCAD workflows.
If you already have components (columns, beams, etc.) modeled and ready to drop into a project, of course it is lightning fast to model simple projects like this example.
I am not as much interested in those situations, because improving efficiency is straightforward and obvious.
I'm more interested in situations where there are no pre-defined families of objects, in which case you need to start from scratch.
The GH model I'm showing is modeled from scratch, except for the 27 lines in Rhino.
Here's one obvious advantage to modeling with GH, once the definition is set-up, it's virtually effortless to change inputs and alter the overall design. Here's an example, lets say we wanted to extend the roof 3 more units, curling away from the original direction.
Plan view before:
And after:
An MCAD app will also allow you to do this, as long as the location of additional elements follows the existing geometric method of definition. What happens if you want completely change the way you locate columns, roof slope, intersection points?
In MCAD, you'll need to re-model the underlying geometry, which will take the same effort as the first round. In GH, this process is not only much faster, it's open to algorithmic approaches, galapagos, etc. and it just takes some simple re-wiring to have all down-stream elements associate themselves to this new geoemtric definition.
For instance, here's the same definition applied to two curves, which are divided in GH, the resulting points are used as a starting point for lines directed at normal from curves.
This is not so easy to do in MCAD.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 7:55pm on February 24, 2011
ceros. Parametrización, panelización y análisis en Grasshopper, así como el proceso de manufactura digital para maquinaria de corte Láser y CNC.
UN solo pago anticipado $4,000.00
Pagos diferidos $4,500.00*
*reserva tu lugar con el 50%
Martes y Jueves de 7 a 10 PM
Del 15 de Mayo al 14 de junio
DURACION: 30 HORAS
SESIONES: 10 DE 3 HORAS
o info@dimensiontallerdigital.com
informes al 55 (50 16 0634) con Mayri Gallegos (o al cel. 55 28 85 24 73)
$4,000.00…
r this or that etc etc).
3. I would strongly advise to use some decent feature/dimension driven CAD app in order to create families of concrete deck/beam(s) profiles "manually" (the good old way PLUS recording history and using parameters for the steps taken). Find a friend who knows, say, AECOSim and ask for a small demo on that matter (specifically ask what DDD is [Dimension Driven Design]). Then you can have these in Rhino/GH, define some topology, do the "solid" and if 1M of decks/beams are required rather use instance definitions and plane to plane transformations (that's what the Orient component does) instead of creating 1M clone objects.…
discussions during this period.
The major topics discussed for GH2 during this period will be:
Documentation/Help
GHA/Cluster/VB/C# App-Store
Localization (i.e. languages other than English)
Constraint Engine implementation
Improved VB/C#/Python development tools
Multi-threading the solver
Building a Mac version
If you feel something important was left out, please let us know here. Note that incremental improvements and bug-fixes are not worth discussion as we'll try and get around to them no matter what. Topics on this list have to fit the "Are we going to try and do X?" format.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 4:07am on October 11, 2013