with this machine.
As Jason says, Rhino and Grasshopper are mainly single-threaded, so I prioritized single core speed and got an i7 4790k, which comfortably overclocks to 4.7GHz (with a decent air cooler, but no fancy liquid cooling).
The Kangaroo2 solver is actually multi-threaded now, but the difference this makes is not great as you might imagine. Using 4 cores is certainly nowhere near 4 times faster, because although parts of the calculation are easily parallelized, everything still needs to be recombined at each iteration, and this is usually the bottleneck. I think there is still room for some improvement in how it is multi-threaded, but I wouldn't hold your breath for any massive changes on this front soon.
I'd be interested to know how the performance scales with the Xeon chips (more cores, significantly more expensive, but relatively low clock speeds). At the time I made the guess that they weren't worth it, but it would be good to really test this out.
RAM is relatively cheap these days, so I went with 32GB of it at 2133MHz. It does seem that the speed of the RAM matters, as enabling XMP in the BIOS (to make it run above the default 1333) seemed to make a noticeable difference.
Graphics-wise my personal feeling is that the gaming oriented GTX cards offer better value than the much more expensive 'professional' Quadro range - and have read that the hardware between the 2 has historically been very similar or even identical despite the Quadros being several times the price, with the difference being mainly in the drivers. There are some threads on discourse.mcneel.com about this, and it seems that recent GTX cards like the 970 do very well in Holomark (the Rhino performance benchmarking tool).
I got a GTX 770 (this was just before the 900 series came out), which is probably way overkill just for Rhino/Grasshopper, as they don't use the GPU for more than display (Though some of the render plugins do, and I think for those more CUDA cores is what matters, so there GTX is probably still better value.)
Probably swapping this for a much cheaper card wouldn't make much difference to Rhino/GH performance anyway (though if you want to use the PC for other stuff like gaming or virtual reality it does).
I don't have much experience with AMD cards, so can't comment on how they compare to Nvidia.
Eventually I do hope to make Kangaroo run the physics on the GPU, and potentially this does have a big speed impact. Nvidia recently released some impressive demos of their FLEX engine, which really fly with a decent graphics card. That is very much game-physics, and not suitable for most of the things Kangaroo is used for, but theoretically Kangaroo could also be adapted to use CUDA (or OpenCL), though it involves a lot of big changes, and I don't have a timeline for this yet.
In the much shorter term there are some things in the pipeline that should speed up Kangaroo for certain things like collisions between large numbers of objects, just by using some different algorithms.
Altogether my machine was still well under €2K, and I've been really happy with it. That said, the difference in performance between this and my 4 year old €700 i5 laptop is actually not that huge in day-to-day Grasshopper usage. It does seem that there is a strong case of diminishing returns with buying a PC - I'd hazard a guess that even spending 3 times this amount (as another thread on this forum was discussing recently) you'd be hard pushed to get anything that made a really significant difference to the experience of using it, and if you really want to spend more money, you would be better off just upgrading more frequently (and getting a nice monitor(s)).
Anyway, a long ramble, I hope some of it is useful. As I said, I'm no hardware expert, and would be interested to hear different opinions.
I also think it will be nice to make a simple benchmarking tool for Kangaroo and have people run it on their various machines and report back results (as with Holomark), to help others make informed decisions on these things. I'll try and put something together for this soon.
onents (radiation, sunlight-hours and view analysis) which let you study the effect of the orientation of your building and the analysis result. When you come to a question similar to "what is the orientation that the building receives the most/least amount of radiation?" is probably the right time to use this component.
I'll try to explain the steps using a simple example. Here is my design geometries. The building in the center is the building to be designed and the rest of the buildings are context. I want to see the effect of orientation on the amount of the radiation on the test building surfaces from the start of Oct. to the end of Feb. for Chicago.
First I need to set up the normal radiation analysis and run it for the building as it is right now. [I'm not going to explain how you can set up this since you can find it in the sample file (Download the sample file from here)]
Now I need to set up the parameters for orientation study using orientationStudyPar component. You can find it under the Extra tab:
At minimum I need to input the divisionAngle, and the totalAngle and set runTheStudy to True. In this case I put 45 for divisionAngle and 180 for the totalAngle which means I want the study to be run for angles 0, 45, 90, 135 and 180.
[Note1: The divisionAngle should be divisible by totalAngle.]
[Note 2: If you don't provide any point for the basePoint, the component will use the center of the geometry as the center of the rotation.]
[Note 3: You can also rotate the context with the geometry! Normally you don't have the chance to change the context to make your design work but if you got lucky the rotateContext input is for you! Set it to True. The default is set to False.]
You're all set for the orientation study, just connect the orientationStudyPar output to OrientationStudyP input in the component and wait for the result!
The component will run the study for all the orientations and preview the latest geometry. To see the result just grab a quick graph and connect it to totalRadiation. As you can see in the graph 135 is the orientation that I receive the maximum radiation. Dang!
If you want to see all the result geometries set bakeIt to True, and the result will be baked under LadyBug> RadaitionStudy>[projectname]> . The layer name starts with a number which is the totalRadiation.
ly this is a Rhino.Python problem and not a Grasshopper issue, but it could apply to both!
I was trying to take a simple example of moving a ball around and see how it could be animated through Rhino.Python. The code works great in wire frame with now memory issues at all. However, when I switch the view to Shaded or Rendered, things go south pretty quickly. The RAM usage of Rhino which was steady around 350mb (ish) now grows every frame after a minute or so, it is in the GB's and never drops even after the script has stopped.What gives? Clearly this must be possible because Bongo does something similar when it does animations. Check out my code below and I would love to hear your thoughts.
import rhinoscriptsyntax as rs
height = 100
width = 100
x = 0
y = 0
xspeed = .1
yspeed = .3
start_time = time.time()
end_time = 60
run_time = 0
sphere = rs.AddSphere((x,y,0), 5)
while run_time < end_time:
x = x + xspeed
y = y + yspeed
if x > width/2 or x < -width/2:
xspeed = xspeed * -1
if y > height/2 or y < -height/2:
yspeed = yspeed * -1
rs.MoveObject(sphere, (xspeed, yspeed, 0))
run_time = time.time() - start_time…
** Warning ** IP: Note -- Some missing fields have been filled with defaults. See the audit output file for details.
** Warning ** Version: in IDF="'8.2.7'" not the same as expected="8.2"
** Warning ** ManageSizing: For a zone sizing run, there must be at least 1 Sizing:Zone input object. SimulationControl Zone Sizing option ignored.
** Warning ** ManageSizing: For a plant sizing run, there must be at least 1 Sizing:Plant object input. SimulationControl Plant Sizing option ignored.
************* Testing Individual Branch Integrity
************* All Branches passed integrity testing
************* Testing Individual Supply Air Path Integrity
************* All Supply Air Paths passed integrity testing
************* Testing Individual Return Air Path Integrity
************* All Return Air Paths passed integrity testing
************* No node connection errors were found.
************* Beginning Simulation
************* Simulation Error Summary *************
** Warning ** The following Report Variables were requested but not generated
** ~~~ ** because IDF did not contain these elements or misspelled variable name -- check .rdd file
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR TOTAL COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR TOTAL HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMP TOTAL COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMP TOTAL HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=CHILLER ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=BOILER HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=FAN ELECTRIC ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR LATENT HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR LATENT COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR SENSIBLE HEATING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=ZONE IDEAL LOADS SUPPLY AIR SENSIBLE COOLING ENERGY, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=SYSTEM NODE MASS FLOW RATE, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=SYSTEM NODE TEMPERATURE, Frequency=Hourly
************* Key=*, VarName=SYSTEM NODE RELATIVE HUMIDITY, Frequency=Hourly
************* There are 3 unused schedules in input.
************* There are 5 unused week schedules in input.
************* There are 13 unused day schedules in input.
************* Use Output:Diagnostics,DisplayUnusedSchedules; to see them.
************* ===== Recurring Surface Error Summary =====
************* The following surface error messages occurred.
************* Base Surface does not surround subsurface errors occuring...
************* Check that the GlobalGeometryRules object is expressing the proper starting corner and direction [CounterClockwise/Clockwise]
** Warning ** Base surface does not surround subsurface (CHKSBS), Overlap Status=No-Overlap
** ~~~ ** The base surround errors occurred 1 times.
** ~~~ ** Surface "839A5ADACCE44BC0AF00_GLZP_31" misses SubSurface "839A5ADACCE44BC0AF00_GLZP_31_GLZ_31"
** Warning ** Base surface does not surround subsurface (CHKSBS), Overlap Status=Partial-Overlap
** ~~~ ** The base surround errors occurred 1 times.
** ~~~ ** Surface "839A5ADACCE44BC0AF00_GLZP_34" overlaps SubSurface "839A5ADACCE44BC0AF00_GLZP_34_GLZ_34"
** ~~~ ** The base surround errors occurred 2 times (total).
************* EnergyPlus Warmup Error Summary. During Warmup: 0 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.
************* EnergyPlus Sizing Error Summary. During Sizing: 2 Warning; 0 Severe Errors.
************* EnergyPlus Completed Successfully-- 7 Warning; 0 Severe Errors; Elapsed Time=00hr 07min 35.94sec…
Hi Clemens I've analysed a plate structure using Karamba and wanted to do a convergence analysis on results computed as a function of the number of elements.
Now, when strictly looking at the result magnitudes of internal energy (IE) and maximum displacement (w_max), it's acceptable, that their relative deviations are very small. But I cannot explain the tendencies of their graphs. From what I know, FEM should always compute underestimated results when compared to analytical solutions. So I don't understand why both the IE and w_max seem to be decreasing for an increasing number of elements.
But my main concern is the behaviour of the peak moment, it seems to be simply hill climbing untill suddenly a singularity kicks in. I initially wanted to use the peak moment as a fitness value for optimisation, but with this behaviour, I don't think that would make sense. I've attached my GH file as well.
It would be much appreciated if you could enlighten me on these subjects. Cheers Daniel Andersen
I could not run your definition because I have not all the plug-ins installed that you use.
You are basically right that the displacement should increase with a finer mesh. However the result of the shell analysis also depends on the shape of the triangles (well formed vs. very distorted). In order to test this, I think it would be interesting to use a very simple example (e.g. rectangular plate with one column) where you can easily control mesh generation. Would you like to start a discussion on this in the karamba group at http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/karamba?
It is not a good idea to use the bending moment at a singularity for optimization because the result will be heavily mesh dependent. Also real columns do have a certain diameter and modeling them as point supports introduces an error.
oh, and by the way!
Here's some relevant literature on handling peak moments: https://books.google.dk/books?id=-5TvNxnVMmgC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=blaauwendraad+plates+and+fem&source=bl&ots=SdDcwnrSA1&sig=6HulPmKNIhqKx4_rGxitteMC4CU&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwA2oVChMIg66k0LPaxgIVgY1yCh1KPAeY#v=onepage&q=chapter%2014&f=false (Blaauwendraad, J., 2010. Plates and FEM : Surprises and Pitfalls, see Chapter 14) It would be great if a feature dealing with peak moments could be incorporated in Karamba. In my work, I ended up exporting my models to Robot in order to verify the moment values. Best, Daniel
thank you for your reply and the link to Blaauwendraads excellent book!
At some point I hope to include material nonlinearity in Karamba which will help in dealing with stress singularities.
If you want you could open a discussion with a title like 'moment peaks in shells at point-supports'. Then we could copy and paste the text of our conversation into it.
nside a script.
However, it should be noted that to do so introduces a significant amount of overhead, which may impact performance. This is because (to the best of my understanding) all the methods described below actually instantiate and execute a virtual Grasshopper document, with components and everything else. Whenever possible, it is advisable to simply call RhinoCommon functions - these are designed to be called in code and are more streamlined.
Grasshopper's Python is unique among the scripting languages in that it has a "node-in-code" mechanism for this purpose in the form of the ghpythonlib library and its "components" class. Here is some example code:
from ghpythonlib import components as ghcomp import Rhino a = ghcomp.Circle(Rhino.Geometry.Plane.WorldXY,25.0) result = ghcomp.DeconstructBrep(b) faces = result edges = result vertices = result
This code will call the "Circle" component with the world XY base plane and a radius of 25, and then call the "Deconstruct Brep" component on a brep (input to the script as "b").
The arguments passed to the function will correspond to the inputs of the component, and the function will return the output (the data itself in the case of a component with only one output, and a tuple of data in the case of multiple outputs, as in the second example above).
For more info on this technique, see this post by Steve Baer.
James Ramsden has described a method for doing this in these two posts on his blog:
Run a Grasshopper Component from C# Code
Read and edit persistent data in Grasshopper components with C#
His examples are in C#, but everything he describes can also be done in VB.net with some syntax tweaks.
The core of his method is to programmatically instantiate a component, populate its inputs, and then create a virtual grasshopper document in which to execute the code. He then harvests the outputs and converts them back to simple data. Here is his example code for calling the "Circle by Normal and Radius" component:
var cs = new CurveComponents.Component_CircleCNR(); //add the circle centre (input 0) var pp = cs.Params.Input as Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_PersistentGeometryParam<Grasshopper.Kernel.Types.GH_Point>; pp.PersistentData.ClearData(); pp.PersistentData.Append(new GH_Point(new Point3d(0, 0, 3))); //add the circle radius (input 2) var pn = cs.Params.Input as Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_PersistentParam<Grasshopper.Kernel.Types.GH_Number>; pn.PersistentData.ClearData(); pn.PersistentData.Append(new GH_Number(y)); //y is another variable //run calculations cs.ExpireSolution(true); //add to a dummy document so we can read outputs var doc = new Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_Document(); doc.AddObject(cs, false); //read output circle cs.Params.Output.CollectData(); A = cs.Params.Output.VolatileData.get_Branch(0); //remove that component doc.RemoveObject(cs.Attributes, false);
For a great many of the simple components, there are in fact methods in RhinoCommon that accomplish exactly the same thing. Note the complexity of the above code, and then look at the equivalent code using RhinoCommon methods:
Circle circle = new Circle(new Plane(origin, normal), radius);
In my experience it is preferable to just call or construct the methods you need using RhinoCommon rather than relying on trying to call components from inside your code.
Lastly, It is my understanding that this concept is central to David's thinking around GH2 - so that it in the next version it will be significantly more streamlined to switch between components and code representations. (I have no special knowledge of GH2 development - this is just what I have seen David say on the forums, and as usual any statements about future features are subject to change.)
Hope this is helpful!
ion of both Ladybug and Honeybee. Notable among the new components are 51 new Honeybee components for setting up and running energy simulations and 15 new Ladybug components for running detailed comfort analyses. We are also happy to announce the start of comprehensive tutorial series on how to use the components and the first one on getting started with Ladybug can be found here:
A second one on how to use the new Ladybug comfort components can be found here:
Here is a short list highlighting some of the capabilities of this current Honeybee release:
1) Run EnergyPlus and OpenStudio Simulations - A couple of components to export your HBZones into IDF or OSM files and run energy simulations right from the grasshopper window! Also included are several components for adjusting the parameters of the simulations and requesting a wide range of possible outputs.
2) Assign EnergyPlus Constructions - A set of components that allow you to assign constructions from the OpenStudio library to your Honeybee objects. This also includes components for searching through the OpenStudio construction/material library and components to create your own constructions and materials.
3) Assign EnergyPlus Schedules and Loads - A set of components for assigning schedules and Loads from the Openstudio library to your Honeybee zones. This includes the ability to auto-assign these based on your program or to tweak individual values. You can even create your own schedules from a stream of 8760 values with the new “Create CSV Schedule” component. Lastly, there is a component for converting any E+ schedule to 8760 values, which you can then visualize with the standard Ladybug components
4) Assign HVAC Systems - A set of components for assigning some basic ASHRAE HVAC systems that can be run with the Export to OpenStudio component. You can even adjust the parameters of these systems right in Grasshopper.
Note: The ASHRAE systems are only available for OpenStudio and can’t be used with Honeybee’s EnergyPlus component. Also, only ideal air, VAV and PTHP systems are currently available but more will be on their way soon!
5) Import And Visualize EnergyPlus Results - A set of components to import numerical EnergyPlus simulation results back into grasshopper such that they can be visualized with any of the standard Ladybug components (ie. the 3D chart or Psychrometric chart). Importers are made for zone-level results as well as surface results and surfaces results can be easily separated based on surface type. This also means that E+ results can be analyzed with the new Ladybug comfort calculator components and used in shade or natural ventilation studies. Lastly, there are a set of components for coloring zone/surface geometry with EnergyPlus results and for coloring the shades around zones with shade desirability.
6) Increased Radiance and Daysim Capabilities - Several updates have also been made to the existing Radiance and Daysim components including parallel Radiance Image-based analysis.
7) Visualize HBObject Attributes - A few components have been added to assist with setting up honeybee objects and ensuing the the correct properties have been assigned. These include components to separate surfaces based on boundary condition and components to label surfaces and zones with virtually any of their EnergyPlus or Radiance attributes.
8) WIP Grizzly Bear gbxml Exporter - Lastly, the release includes an WIP version of the Grizzly Bear gbXML exporter, which will continue to be developed over the next few months.
And here’s a list of the new Ladybug capabilities:
1) Comfort Models - Three comfort models that have been translated to python for your use in GH: PMV, Adaptive, and Outdoor (UTCI). Each of these models has a “Comfort Calculator” component for which you can input parameters like temperature and wind speed to get out comfort metrics. These can be used in conjunction with EPW data or EnergyPlus results to calculate comfort for every hour of the year.
2) Ladybug Psychrometric Chart - A new interactive psychrometric chart that was made possible thanks to the releasing of the Berkely Center for the Built Environment Comfort Tool Code (https://github.com/CenterForTheBuiltEnvironment/comfort-tool). The new psychrometric chart allows you to move the comfort polygon around based on PMV comfort metrics, plot EPW or EnergyPlus results on the psych chart, and see how many hours are made comfortable in each case. The component also allows you to plot polygons representing passive building strategies (like internal heat gain or evaporative cooling), which will adjust dynamically with the comfort polygon and are based on the strategies included in Climate Consultant.
3) Solar Adjusted MRT and Outdoor Shade Evaluator - A component has been added to allow you to account for shortwave solar radiation in comfort studies by adjusting Mean Radiant Temperature. This adjusted MRT can then be factored into outdoor comfort studies and used with an new Ladybug Comfort Shade Benefit Evaluator to design outdoor shades and awnings.
4) Wind Speed - Two new components for visualizing wind profile curves and calculating wind speed at particular heights. These allow users to translate EPW wind speed from the meteorological station to the terrain type and height above ground for their site. They will also help inform the CFD simulations that will be coming in later releases.
5) Sky Color Visualizer - A component has been added that allows you to visualize a clear sky for any hour of the year in order to get a sense of the sky qualities and understand light conditions in periods before or after sunset.
Ready to Start?
Here is what you will need to do:
Download Honeybee and Ladybug from the same link here. Make sure that you remove any old version of Ladybug and Honeybee if you have one, as mentioned on the Ladybug group page.
You will also need to install RADIANCE, DAYSIM and ENERGYPLUS on your system. We already sent a video about how to get RADIANCE and Daysim installed (link). You can download EnergyPlus 8.1 for Windows from the DOE website (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/?utm_source=EnergyPlus&utm_medium=redirect&utm_campaign=EnergyPlus%2Bredirect%2B1).
“EnergyPlus is a whole building energy simulation program that engineers, architects, and researchers use to model energy and water use in buildings.”
“OpenStudio is a cross-platform (Windows, Mac, and Linux) collection of software tools to support whole building energy modeling using EnergyPlus and advanced daylight analysis using Radiance.”
Make sure that you install ENERGYPLUS in a folder with no spaces in the file path (e.g. “C:\Program Files” has a space between “Program” and “Files”). A good option for each is C:\EnergyPlusV8-1-0, which is usually the default locations when you run the downloaded installer.
New Example Files!
We have put together a large number of new updated example files and you should use these to get yourself started. You can download them from the link on the group page.
Since the last release, we have had several new members join the Ladybug + Honeybee developer team:
Chien Si Harriman - Chien Si has contributed a large amount of code and new components in the OpenStudio workflow including components to add ASHRAE HVAC systems into your energy models and adjust their parameters. He is also the author of the Grizzly Bear gbxml exporter and will be continuing work on this in the following months.
Trygve Wastvedt - Trygve has contributed a core set of functions that were used to make the new Ladybug Colored Sky Visualizer and have also helped sync the Ladybug Sunpath to give sun positions for the current year of 2014
Abraham Yezioro - Abraham has contributed an awesome new bioclimatic chart for comfort analyses, which, despite its presence in the WIP tab, is nearly complete!
Djordje Spasic - Djordje has contributed a number of core functions that were used to make the new Ladybug Wind Speed Calculator and Wind Profile Visualizer components and will be assisting with workflows to process CFD results in the future. He also has some more outdoor comfort metrics in the works.
Andrew Heumann - Andrew contributed an endlessly useful list item selector, which can adjust based on the input list, and has multiple applications throughout Ladybug and Honeybee. One of the best is for selecting zone-level programs after selecting an overall building program.
Alex Jacobson - Alex also assisted with the coding of the wind speed components.
And, as always, a special thanks goes to all of our awesome users who tested the new components through their several iterations. Special thanks goes to Daniel, Michal, Francisco, and Agus for their continuous support. Thanks again for all the support, great suggestions and comments. We really cannot thank you enough.
Ladybug + Honeybee Development Team
PS: If you want to be updated about the news about Ladybug and Honeybee like Ladybug’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/LadyBugforGrasshopper) or follow ladybug’s twitter account (@ladybug_tool).
me of the dimensions that changed ( become Diagonal after they were Vertical or Horizontal)
I sometime use Record History in rhino for saving time, but when I change some points of curves or trim curves , I have problems with dimensions (see the two pictures below).
Problem 2 :
After trimming , only two dimensions should be changed depending on their place in changed curves . But what happens is that all the dimensions become crazy!!!!!!
I always use Aligned dimension in rhino. Now I know that dimensionsdo not exist in grasshopper. So I ask you if we have expertise in BV , C#, can we create a script for dimensions or is it impossible ??
If we can , I only need Aligned dimension.
I hope that I find or create a script that can define all points: start and end of curve ribs and create dimensions from grasshopper to rhino directly with or without the ability to change automatically .
mesh by an infinite plane
Namespace: Rhino.GeometryAssembly: RhinoCommon (in RhinoCommon.dll) Version: 5.0.15006.0 (5.0.20693.0)
public Mesh Split( Plane plane )
Public Function Split ( _ plane As Plane _ ) As Mesh()
Type: Rhino.Geometry..::..Plane[Missing <param name="plane"/> documentation for "M:Rhino.Geometry.Mesh.Split(Rhino.Geometry.Plane)"]
[Missing <returns> documentation for "M:Rhino.Geometry.Mesh.Split(Rhino.Geometry.Plane)"]
Last updated 3 June 2011 - Robert McNeel and Associates
Send comments on this topic to firstname.lastname@example.org
Report wishes and bugs: https://github.com/mcneel/rhinocommon/issues
Is this the function?
I have a VB component with this:
a = rhino.Geometry.Mesh.CreateBooleanSplit(x, y)
but this is a boolean split, so I have only one mesh, with the intersection. I would like to have several splitted meshes.
Thank you in advance again.
y anyway ;))
Since 2014 i begun to get back into the construction biz for some dozen main reasons, one of them being the highly increased availability of this kind of software "power", and robotics.
first project ended by 1stQ 2015 was focused on the development of a parametric block for construction. (almost sure the first parametric product designed in Uruguay, and probably one of the few first of this kind globally...)
Far from being a complicated model. In fact the standard model is extremely simple, key thing is that is fully parametric...
dimensions, materials, textures, colors... and so on
second key thing is that the main common component of the blocks (an EPS core) is robotically machined...
the blocks are the base of a construction system (oriented mainly - though not restricted only - to residential buildings) that
- is based on digital models, tendentially to be used in parametric models of buidings
- lab tested to prove to be 1.5 times as compression resistant than traditional bricks and blocks. (autoportability up to two stories buildings)
- has recently proved (due to size) to be 300% more efficient than the classic and 200% more efficient than steel frame in (our country official figures)
check it out here
- and it's aimed to be mass produced and handled by robots...
this project ended on 1H 2016
and i filed 4 patents in the process.
3 of them of mechanical devices designed as extensions for a cnc machine i own
and the fourth (
the patent related specifically with the blocks ) included a dozen of innovations (believe me...i have almost 15 yrs in the biz, and are coool stuff...)
along the project I've been working with inventor, even knowing in advance it will lack the kind of features I wanted to program many things... (lisp, VB, etc.... all same species of -prehistoric - animals) to leverage the tool to the sky - and far beyond... -
but was an alternative valid by that time because it allows the implementation of some form of parametric models, had a local representative and some supposedly skilled guys in the neibourhood....
but life is hard... and none of the latter two rendered me any significant help
so I had to take the tour myself...
- mind i never regret to do things that others cant -
and finish what i start
this one was a great project for many figures... and ended with more results than the ones commited to accomplish...
... some more history here ....
then because of a customer who brought a ZHA project ! to quote..., I crossed with rhino, and then met GH again to notice to my great joy and pleasure, in what kind of animal it had developed...
since money talks I'm investing hard on getting up to the expectations, and beyond as i usually do...
and thats how we met..
2017-2018 it's the time frame to build two robots. first one is a prototype to handle the k-nano blocks in the production process, delivery AND at the construction site ( a "smart crane" we nicknamed...)
the other one is the first prototype of robot to assist in the fabrication (smart blocker we called it to be creative ! ;))
then by 2018-2019 i'll be making a "kinda contour crafter" machine to complete the pie :) (you'll be interested on this..)
i guess you already know what all this has to do with GH...
i already have all the components i can imagine to do almost all i ever wanted to do in relation to this set of projects
but in almost a single tool !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i can design, animate, render, optimize, simulate and even robotic simulate..
so, i have to ask...
is there a chance you might be interested in helping us in some projects we are starting on march and june 2017 (8 and no more than 18 months of duration respectively) ?
sent you a friend request, for the case you might be interested to continue by e-mail...
in any case many thanks for your help and inspiration !
best regards !
long happy marriage, and large figures bank account !