thing that MicroStation does (or doesn't). The eternal debate between us is that they focus to the so called BIM aspect of things (and obviously on interoperability matters - that said IFC2*4 is" implemented" in certain Bentley verticals like BA and others) whilst I'm after assembly/component puzzles (and on that matter ... MS ...hmm... to put it politely is not exactly CATIA and/or NX, he he).
On the other hand this paranoid obsession with Level/Layer driven CAD (I hate it) defines a red thick line between CAD and MCAD - because the most intelligent importer can't emulate the way that Siemens NX/CATIA classifies objects - and without control power means nothing.
On the other hand Microstation V9 (...soon) has interesting scripting capabilities (think Modo rather Generative Components) ... meaning that Grasshopper could work there in a rather nice way. I think that I must talk for that to Ray (he recently ditched the ancient legacy MS render engine in favor for the Luxology/Nexus engine). Ray still is negative to buy Act3D mind (hope that you know the mother of visual scripting - the Quest3D VR thing).
On the other hand - within the broad AEC aspect - things these days are different (especially in fast developing countries the likes of UAE, Saudi Arabia, certain ex USSR "democracies" etc etc). Studies are outsourced even at Preliminary Design stage to various sub-contractors (they undertake the Study completion per discipline as well). This means that N separate groups doing M aspects of the whole ... meaning entropy^(N*M) - that's chaos in plain English.
With this in mind I'm quite (a lot) skeptical about the practical meaning of the whole exchange thing in AEC - at least with regard the countries mentioned (not to mention that several portions of a modern AEC thing are made via MCAD apps - chaos^chaos.
I'll back with more focused issues on that matter.
But the big question is: Grasshopper of Generative Components? Well...let's talk serious SS bikes instead: think a Ducati 1198 and a BMW S1000RR (I have them both): which is "best"? The thing is that not always the best bunny is the fasted bunny and not always the fasted bunny is the best bunny.
Cheers,
Peter
…
ents (e.g. only fabric between 2 radial cable). But if I try to simulate a completely whole structure like picture below + if I trying to model a material that has more degree subdivision + adding diagonals (as resistance to shear deformation which causes the creases like Daniel Pikels example of tablecloth drop), then I have huge problem to deal with my hardware.
(I am using Intel Xeon 4 cores, 2.93GHz with 4GB RAM and running in Win7 in 64 bit but with Rhino 32 bit.)
(Roof geometry can be completely asymmetrical, so let’s assuming that we can’t array the resulting geometries!)
There are some discussions about how to increase the processing power of grasshopper:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/is-there-a-plan-to-suppor...
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/performance-of-grasshopper?
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/grasshopper-cpu-optimization
As I know that the GH is single threaded, we could over clocking the CPU + give lot of RAM.
I am curious if Kangaroo and other Apps are following the same performance-rule (single thread) like Rhino/ G.H? And what would be the key-feature to increase the power of Rhino/GH/Kangaroo in order to process the case I mentioned before (completely retractable roof)?
- Which level of CPU? Or constraint of CPU over clocking when necessary and capacity of RAM)
- How fine tuning my PC for best performance? (Parallel computing, c-flex…)
- is GPU a matter? (E.g. in Animation standard: Nvidia CUDA Quadro 4000+)
Or probably just a suggestion of workstation ;-)
Sorry I am not expertise of computer technical…
Thanks!…
w elements (e.g. only fabric between 2 radial cable). But if I try to simulate a completely whole structure like picture below + if I trying to model a material that has more degree subdivision + adding diagonals (as resistance to shear deformation which causes the creases like your example of tablecloth drop), then I have huge problem to deal with my hardware.
(I am using Intel Xeon 4 cores, 2.93GHz with 4GB RAM and running in Win7 in 64 bit but with Rhino 32 bit.)
(Roof geometry can be completely asymmetrical, so let’s assuming that we can’t array the resulting geometries!)
There are some discussions about how to increase the processing power of grasshopper:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/is-there-a-plan-to-support-multicore-in-the-future
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/performance-of-grasshopper?
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/grasshopper-cpu-optimization
As I read that the GH is single threaded, we could over clocking the CPU + give lot of RAM.
I am curious if Kangaroo and other Apps are following the same performance-rule (single thread) like Rhino/ G.H? And what would be the key-feature to increase the power of Rhino/GH/Kangaroo in order to process the case I mentioned before (completely retractable roof)?
- Which level of CPU? Or constraint of CPU over clocking when necessary and capacity of RAM)
- How fine tuning my PC for best performance? (Parallel computing, c-flex…)
- is GPU a matter? (E.g. in Animation standard: Nvidia CUDA Quadro 4000+)
Or probably just a suggestion of workstation ;-)
Sorry I am not expertise of computer technical…
Thanks!
…
Added by Jon to Kangaroo at 3:31am on June 27, 2014
ake a network of lines (i.e. a graph) and make a Plankton Mesh, from which you can use Cytoskeleton to make a solid mesh (and then smooth it with Weaverbird).
Works with ngons (polygons with 3 or more sides). Other examples I found only worked with tris and quads.
Works on open or closed surfaces
While these examples start with a surface, you could start with a network of lines and make a patch surface
This is meant for 2D networks/surfaces. I haven't attempted filling a 3D volume. My guess is this wouldn't work as it would require a non-manifold mesh that Plankton wouldn't handle.
Note similar results could be achieved with the following:
TSplines
MeshDual (dual of a tri mesh, not as much freedom/control)
Working backwards, here is the GhPython script from Will Pearson that builds a Plankton Mesh from vertices and faces. The vertices are a list of 3D coordinates, the faces are a tree a lists, with each list containing the indices of vertices that form a closed loop. From Will, "Plankton only handles manifold meshes, i.e. meshes which have a front and a back. This orientation is determined by the "right-hand rule" i.e. if the vertices of a face are ordered counter-clockwise then the face normal will be out of the page/screen."
# V: list of Point3d # F: tree of int
import Grasshopper appdata = Grasshopper.Folders.DefaultAssemblyFolder
import clr clr.AddReferenceToFileAndPath(appdata + "Plankton.dll")
import Plankton
pmesh = Plankton.PlanktonMesh()
for pt in V: pmesh.Vertices.Add(pt.X, pt.Y, pt.Z)
for face in F.Branches: face = list(face)[:-1] pmesh.Faces.AddFace(face)
These vertices and faces are precisely the output from Starling. Starling takes in a list of Polylines which form the (properly oriented) face loops.
The polyline face loops can be generated...
Directly from Panels on a surface using LunchBox
Using any network of lines/curves on a surface (curves will need to be converted to polylines before Starling)
The latter was achieved using the Surface Split command, then converting the face edges (converted to curves) into polyline loops to represent faces.
…
). It deals with the potential possibility to port GH into AEC fields (real-life AEC fields, nothing to do with academic thinking). The bad news are that the smart AEC sector is occupied solely by Bentley/GenComp – expect soon Revit/Dynamo as well (not to mention CATIA). The good news are that there’s millions of designers/engineers/industrial designers out there who could be interested for a 3rd alternative.
Intro: Well, in the old days (when men had mustache and muttonchops) AEC design performed in a nice top-to-bottom sequence (kinda like a vector) : the Big Man (aka The Brain) did some sketches (with crayons) and the rest (known as the “others”) struggled to make The Idea a reality. Today things are different, mind. Or they should be different. Or may be different. Or whatever. The big easy:For a zillion o reasons (AEC matures, PLM, cost, outsourcing, sustainable engineering…add several more) this vector like process of the past is like a Brown motion these days: Right down the moment that you (or your team) “sketch” The Big Idea … another team design simultaneously (i.e. in parallel) the components (parts) that compose the whole. This is the so called bottom-to-top design mentality. So the whole and the parts meet in some "middle point" instead the later being dictated by the former. In quite a few occasions parts dictate the whole (cost, cost and cost being the main reasons). The more a design is contemporary the more this bottom-to-top thing plays a critical role. Ignore it and have a very big time (sooner or later).The bad news:If you accept the above…well GH – at present phase - is not ready for contemporary AEC work. At.All.3 Main reasons for that:1.You can’t use parametric parts (i.e. nested blocks to speak Rhino language) into a given definition (in this case attached : truss nodes, connection flanges, mount plates, cable tensioners, planar glazing components, roof skin components…etc etc). This is obviously a Rhino domain.2.You can’t bake a given solution in such a way that the Rhino file is structured (i.e. assemblies of nested blocks). Or you can do it theoretically writing some VB/C code – but the core of the matter is that corresponding components are MIA. That means that you can’t export anything useful actually into established AEC oriented apps and/or established MCAD apps (for doing/calculating the parts for real-life production).3.The GH process can’t being interrupted. Imagine defining, say, a building “envelope” in GH and then …er…use Evolute tools in order to optimize things (say quad planarization and the likes). Then …continue in GH for more detailed work. Then design the parts as in 1 above. Then back to Evolute. Then back to GH.So…if anyone is interested I would be glad to start the mother of all debates and/or some kind of crusade (GH for President, that is).PS: This definition is a WIP thing – more refined stuff to follow (in particular a complex canopy tubes pre-stress system).
PS: Tree8 components are used sporadically.
PS: Use Saved Views
May the Dark Force be with us.Best, Peter …
tly light vehicles such as bicycles and variations thereof. Although frame design is mostly of a structural nature, there are a number of elements that interact mechanically. Also, as you may be aware, bicycle and high grade tubing is not of constant section so shelling method in FEA is out of the question, but even so, because the joint needs to be modeled very accurately, that means different geometry and properties for welded area, heat affected area and base material; like so a simpler FEA package may not suffice.
I don't know karamba extensively, rather superficially, actually, but I'm under the impression it mostly deals with beam analysis. Pls correct me if I am under the wrong impression. I must say it would be very nice to have a complete FEA package inside GH really!!
Typical workflow for me would be to model everything in Solidworks, and then export to Ansys Mechanical. Although Ansys needs to read every input and naturally remesh back again, integration within Solidworks, Catia, Inventor, Creo, Solidthinking... and the sort, works reasonably well.
Now, I don't remember Ansys having a Rhinoceros plugin so that you could bridge the 2 together, but maybe I should go check again.
3) Great work with that fractal tree. It's nice to know it is a possibility at least. I have tried Apophysis and others, but to my knowledge there's not an application that could deliver 3D fractal designs in a way that you could further manipulate with conventional modelling techniques, maybe apply textures and render, or export to CAM, 3D printing... etc.
P.S.: I have tried all the apps mentioned above and then some more. All of them have serious limitations when it comes to parametric design. For complex models they crash plenty upon rebuilding... a number of time consuming errors appear, and general work flow isn't very efficient for purely parametric work. Speaking for myself, I'd rather spend the time on a definition that enables me to have full control and then generate a new result within seconds, than model everything very quickly and then taking a long time with each new result.
(Thanks for the replies and sorry for the long text, you asked to elaborate).…
All example files below are updated and compatible only with Wasp 0.1.0
Download it here: Food4Rhino
01_Basic_Aggregation
02_Multi_Part_Aggregation
03_Field_Driven_Aggregation
04_Part_Geometry_Rep
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
bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Matrix transforms and persistent constraints: I don't think this is true. The parts can have mates to other parts that preserve geometric relationships like 'coincident' , 'aligned' etc. These are essentially bi-directional. GH's algorithmic approach does not do relationships in the same / flexible way. In GH, the 'relationship' has to be part of the generation method that dependent on the creation sequence. I.e. draw line 2 perpendicularly from the end of point of line 1. If you are thinking about parts or assemblies sharing, or referencing parameters as part of the regen process, this is also possible. iLogic does this, and adds scripting. So does Catia. Inventor/iLogic can also access Excel and have all the parameter processing done centrally, if required.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
I wouldn't be too hasty here. Yes, you are right about compartmentalisation. I think this needs to happen with GH, in order to deal with scalability/everyday interoperability requirements. Confining projects to one script is not sustainable. MCAD apps have been doing this for ages with 'Relational Modeling'.The Adaptive Components placement example illustrates that it is beneficial to be able to script some 'hints' that can be used on placement of the component. Say, if your component requires points as inputs, then its should be able to find the nearest points to the cursor as it moves around. I think Aish's D# / DesignScript demo'd this kind of behaviour a few years ago. Similarly, Modo Toolpipe reminds me how a lot of UI based transactions can be captured as scripts (macro recorder etc). Allowing this input to be mixed in and/or extended by GH I think will yield a lot of 'modeling efficiency' around the edges. This is a (mis)using GH as an user-programmable 'jig' for placing/manipulating 'dumb' elements in Rhino. It may even give the 'dumb elements' a bit more 'intelligence' by leaving behind embedded attributes, like links to particular construction planes etc.Even if we confine ourselves to scripting. GH is a visual or graphic programming interface. A lot of 'insert and connect' tasks can be done more easily using graphic methods. If we need to select certain vertices on a mesh as inputs for, say, a facade panel, its going to be quicker to do this 'graphically' (like the AC example), then ferreting out the relevant indices in the data tree et al. The 'facade panel' script would then have some coding to filter/prompt the user as to what inputs were acceptable, and so on.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
Not sure what you mean here. If the i-parts are built up using sketches /profiles or other more rudimentary features (like Revits' profile/face etc family templates) then reuse should be fairly straight forward. I suppose you could make it like GH scripting, if you cut and paste or include script snippets that generate the desired Inventor features.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
I don't think this is true. Look at the automotive body design apps, which are mostly Catia based. All of the body parts are pretty much 'generative' and generated from splines, in a procedural way, using very similar approaches to GH. Or sheet metal design. It's not always about configuration of off-the-shelf items like bolts. And, the constraints manager is available to arbitrate which bit of script fires first, and your mundane workaday associative dimensions etc can update without getting run over by the DAG(s) :-)
…
ll geometry.
The difference with programs like Inventor is that they are made for production, regardless of the fabrication method. I won't go into detail about that, and instead focus on the modeling process.
In this little model, the starting point actually is a bit obvious, the foundation.
The only contents in the 3dm file are 27 lines. These indicate the location of each footing, and the direction of the tilt of each column. Everything else is defined in GH with the use of numbers as input parameters.
Needless to say, instead of those lines you could obviously generate lines and control the number of columns and panels, hence establish their layout, with any algorithmic or non-algorithmic criteria you please. That marks a major difference between GH and Inventor.
You can generate geometry with Inventor via scripting/customization (beyond iLogic), with transient graphics for visual feedback similar to GH's red-default previews. However Inventor's modeling functions are not set to input and output data trees. I won't go into detail on that, but suffice to say that the data tree associativity of GH was for me the first major difference I noticed. I've used other apps with node diagram interfaces like digital fusion for non-linear video editing since the late 90's, so the canvas did not call my attention when I first started using GH.
Anyways, here's a screen capture of the foundational lines:
In the first group of components, the centerlines of the rear columns are modeled:
And the locations in elevation for connection points are set. Those elevations were just numbers I copied from Excel, but you can obviously control that any way you please. I was just trying to model this quickly.
The same was done for the rear columns:
The above, believe it or not, took me the first 5 hours to get.
Here's a screen capture of what the model and definition looked like after 4 hours, not much:
If you're interested, next post I can get into the sketching part you mentioned, which is a bit cumbersome with GH, but not really.
I wouldn't say that using GH to do this little model was cumbersome, it just needed some thinking at the beginning. You do similar initial thinking when working with a feature-based modeler.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 12:44am on February 24, 2011