t, you can find it in this thread.
2. there can be several reasons why Wasp chooses always the same part (rules, part geometry, connections orientation, etc.). Unfortunately I cannot check your file, because the geometry is missing, and it is built with a very old Wasp version. I would suggest you to update the file to the latest Wasp version available here, include the Rhino file, and then I can take a look.…
nition, not a GH bug, but this gave me a little idea: as I saw in the last version of GH, the clusters are back. There is no link with the memory, but this is the idea: I know that GH is not a multi-threaded app, but could it be possible to assign the execution of these different clusters to, let's say one processor-core each? (in a distributed-rendering like interface: cluster A rendered by core 1, B by core 2, etc.) And as GHowl allows to send datas through networks, it could also be possible to link multi-sessions of GH on different PCs as well, no? ...…
priety software). Think Kangaroo with RON 100 fuel (add some nitrous oxide).
Back to domes.
1. Obviously you know the free WinDome Bono thing...but anyway get it (code included).
2. As I said on another thread (http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/the-necessity-for-a-data-tree-manager) ... the big thing in AEC (because, for instance, nobody does domes for decoration/artistic stuff etc etc) is how to implement already designed things (see images above) within a smart stuff definition (or many).
3. Goes several steps beyond: these "breps" (to speak GH/Rhino language) are in most cases nested and some parts are "locked" for transformations some other not. That's the big thing when trying to outline real-life AEC solutions in the so called Smart applications. I think that this is not doable in Rhino since there's no way to edit (in place) a nested block.
4. Goes even further: for each custom made thing (truss nodes and the likes) ... there's a bill waiting. Meaning that the less customized a solution is (with regard industrial sourced existed parts) the more is possible for the client to sign the dotted line.
Best, Peter…
subsequently able to retain a higher level of flexibility.
In Rhino however a rectangle is defined as only a plane and two numeric intervals (one for x, one for y). The possible solutions to this would be:
Extend the Rhino SDK Rectangle3d type to include constant radius fillet corners. This can be done, but is a lot of work and will break the SDK.
Create a new type in Grasshopper which is smarter than Rectangle3d. This complicates developing for Grasshopper because now you have to keep two different types in mind whereas before only one was needed.
Remove the Fillet Radius input from Rectangle components. I like this solution because it results in cleaner, simpler code, but it does mean people may need to use two components where before one was sufficient.
Make the Rectangle type smart enough so that it can recognise filleted rectangles and undo the filleting. This is something I can do right now for Grasshopper 1.0 and it in all likelihood would not break actual existing files even though it is technically a behavioural change.
I'll try and get (4) done for Rhino 6 SR1, I might decide to do (3) for Grasshopper 2.0. I sincerely doubt that (1) will ever get done and I dislike (2).…
Added by David Rutten at 4:38am on November 6, 2017
quite know where I'm going wrong. I can say that I have successfully put together a separate file which will send data directly to the Arduino (switch on a boolean toggle and watch an LED light up... how fun:) but receiving the data is a bit more complicated. For a long time, I was getting a continuous loop error, which would freeze my app. I've changed around the code (see attached file), but I'm still not receiving any data from my COM port (which I know is definitely working because I can turn on the Serial Monitor from the Arduino IDE and see the data coming in). I did have one question: Can you call different routines inside the script class (from Grasshopper), or do you have to always call the run script subroutine? If you guys have any suggestions I would greatly appreciate it. I understand it's a bit tricky to trouble shoot this issue since you may or may not have an Arduino handy to stream the data to your computer... but let me know if you see any glaring issues with the code.
Cheers,
Andy…
t ... have a close look on these weird "slots" in the base mount plate - allow the struts to "follow" some base "auto" arrangement (up to a point).
2. After various ... er ... hmm... "communications" with a variety of apps.(some of them are not for public eyes) ...here's a concept demo about what could be done and fool the academics (that's the bit that I like the most)
In plain English (work in GH):
1. Create some wires that represent the struts and PAY attention on their limits of adjustability.
2. Create a nurbs curve through the points indicated with "balls" in the demo. Patch the nurbs.
3. Trim the nurbs surface with some "indicative" profiles OR use Kangaroo by applying a minimum possible relax state (if the latter add the rhomboid cables as well - they deform by pulling the membrane downwards).
4. Optionally put the real things in place (quite GPU taxing that one - do some Viz control).
best, Peter
…
ion of surfaces and/or "solids" : it's a very complex assembly of "components" either bespoke or widely available in the market. This demo combo summarizes the "common" cases (but the insulation for the opaque parts is WRONG 100%):
2. Contemporary trends (a bit of nonsense) point towards "liquid" forms. These ARE NOT made via "classic" linear systems. Very few actually can do it (I mean: do it yielding a building that doesn't leak]). Here's a totally wrong take on that matter from a very reputable Swiss facade maker:
And er ... hmm ... this :
3. Facade systems (curtain walls, that is) are classified in 4 classes: (a) the good old known humble stuff like the one shown in the first image (b) semi structural [yes], (c) structural [NO] and (d) planar frame-less systems.
4. Designing any proper facade is impossible with Rhino/GH: you'll need totally different software apps to do it - in real life - despite what most people believe/hope/wish.
5. Designing anything without a proper bottom-top approach (I.e. : first do the pistons then the engine) is the best recipe for not becoming (ever) a pro .…
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.
…
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)…
y apps in use in descending order of importance are:
ProjectWise (who did/said what/when and why): If this fails no need for further talking.
ARCOM MasterSpec/SpecText (you can do something without drawings but not without specs/articles). If this fails ... see above.
Detail management (Where are 100++K 1:1 drawings/models? you tell me). Think of it as a guideline for the next project. If this fails be prepared to reinvent the wheel.
AECOSim and Bentley verticals. If this fails go buy lot's of vellum paper and some Rapidograph.
Catia/SiemensNX. If this fails forget "tricky"/WOW bits and parts: simplify the solution (or use Microstation feature driven modeling [good luck, wish you the best]).
Generative Components. If this fails why bother? Do the thing the old classic manual way.
…