une 7 at Madison Square Garden. Promoted by Miguel Cotto Promotions, Top Rank®, DiBella Entertainment and Sampson Boxing, in association with Maravilla Box, Tecate and Madison Square Garden.Fight Tickets and PPV InfoCotto vs Martinez tickets are now available for purchase online at Ticketnetwork. To charge by phone with a major credit card, call Buy Tickets Center at (855) 859-4045. The fight will be produced and distributed live by HBO Pay-Per-View®, beginning at 9:00 p.m. ET/6:00 p.m. PT.Hall of Fame trainer Freddie Roach is devising a cunning and effective strategy to, badger, outfox, and hound WBC middleweight champion Sergio “Maravilla” Martinez (51-2-2, 28KOs) into a brush with defeat, on June 7th at Madison Square Garden. Roach is training former three division world champion Miguel Cotto (38-4, 31KOs) for the match.“We have seen Martinez fights. I observed him closely when I was in Julio Cesar Chavez Jr’s corner, and he’s very fast. But…like all opponents he can be outboxed. If Miguel focuses on his body, Martinez will loose his speed and that’s when we will knock him out,” Roach mused.Cotto (38-4, 31 KO) and Martinez (51-2-2, 28 KO) will meet for Martinez’s WBC middleweight title and The Ring Magazine championship at Madison Square Garden, promoted by Top Rank, DiBella Entertainment, and Miguel Cotto Promotions.“Face Off” will premiere on Saturday, May 24 at Midnight EDT (so technically, the first minutes of Sunday, May 25, technically), after the May 24 HBO Boxing After Dark card, featuring Bryant Jennings vs Mike Perez, Daniel Geale vs Matthew Macklin, and Edwin Rodriguez vs Marcus Johnson.Other air times:HBO air times include: May 24 (12:00 a.m.), 25 (10:00 a.m.), 27 (3:15 p.m. & 2:30 a.m.), 28 (12:30 a.m.), 29 (5:30 p.m.), 30 (10:30 a.m.), 31 (7:00 p.m.) and June 3 (12:30 p.m. & 3:30 a.m.), 5 (1:15 a.m.), 6 (6:45 p.m.) and 7 (10:45 a.m.).HBO2 air times include: May 25 (5:30 p.m.), 26 (10:45 a.m. & 3:30 a.m.) 30 (4:00 p.m.) and 31 (11:30 p.m.).…
geode. The faceting system also references the original use of triangulation for mapping three dimensional landscapes.
My question responds to the need to control the edges lengths and angles within the triangles to make the process of construction possible. We are hoping to keep the edges under 28 inches and the minimum angle more than 15 degrees. What would be your suggestion in grasshopper?
Our process for getting the facet was also... the long way.
1. draw curves based on three dimension measurements of interior
2. networks surface the four curves
3. mesh surface
4. triangulate mesh
5. reduce polygons
6. splitmeshedge where necessary to make quadrilaterals triangles once more
Any suggestions?…
Added by Amanda Gann at 8:57pm on December 4, 2013
not rhinocommonPath
(this is not the bug but if the correction is not made, then the form doesn't clearly ask for the dll
Second part of the solution (and here it corrects the bug)
Do something so we do not execute line 53 -if (File.Exists(Path.Combine(path, "rhinocommon.dll")))- if path == null.
The way I did it is certainly not the most elegant one but it's efficient. I have added the two following line of code
if (path == null)
path = "C:\\";
--------------
Now I have also corrected the code so it finds the dll on my computer. But I'm not sure the installation is the same for everyone. On my computer the information GrashopperFinder.cs is looking for is not under the LocalMachine hive but under the CurrentUser hive! So FindGrasshopper (line 19) is never checking for the right hive.
As I'm on a Windows 7 - 64, I have just added at line 28 the following code
SearchRegistryKey(rh5_64_Reg, rh5_RegName, RegistryHive.CurrentUser, RegistryView.Registry64, strings);
Now everything seems to work with the latest version of Grasshopper. So next step is to put the right .NET version and also extend the wizard to Visual Studio Express 2012 or beyond (Already done for the wizard for Rhino, so it shouldn't be an bid problem).
Anyways, thank you if someone who know how to code can double check what I did and correct everything (i.e. put the right code on GitHub + the corrected template on the VisualStudioGallery
Regards
Serge…
urface,like
surface0 had 41 floors
surface1 had 28 floors
surface2 had 21 floors
I tried to change the data matching of the <move> component but still can't make the result that I want.
beside that, are there any component can let the overlay boxes can separate like this:
i make it manually by bake and move and bake and move..............
please forgive my broken english.
thanks
my definition
MASS%20STUDY-1.gh…
pen Brep"; I didn't know it worked on flat surfaces. And I think it's only fair to include in your benchmark the considerable time 'SUnion' takes in this example: 21.9 seconds for 121 rings and likely much more with 400 or 1,000+ rings.
Then I noticed the pattern doesn't match. Checked the circles and they are the same. The distance between them, however, is different: 7 instead of 6. When I change that value to 6, the Python fails badly. All the holes and gaps are gone, which destroys the pattern:
I can't do the "two phase" approach on an 11 X 11 grid, but I can do 6 X 6 and 2 X 2 to get a 12 X 12 grid (40 'SUnion' operations) in 28 seconds total. That beats your benchmark of ~37 seconds for an 11 X 11 grid, if you include the 'SUnion' in your code.
…
are not copy with the number that belong to each other, like:
untrimmed surface0 should be 41 pieces
untrimmed surface1 should be 28 pieces
untrimmed surface1 should be 21 pieces
it result like this
exclude the 1st and 2nd pieces,the others all is untrimmed surface 1
and the attachments is the result that i want, I done it one by one.…
思った感じになりません。
balls の代わりにplanarカーブを直接入れてみましたがエラーが出ます。
ファンクションにしてみたところ、forループので作った数値が反映されていません。
ファンクションのインスタンス?を出力していないと思い上記のようにしましたがエラーが出てしまいます。
以上の事から自分の認識が正しいのかよくわからなくなりました・・・
python自体の深いところをわかっているわけではないので余計こんがらがりました。
そこで、for b in ballsはどのような条件または使い方であれば使えるのでしょうか?
そして、上記のように別のオブジェクトに対しての使い方はどのようにすればできるのでしょうか?
2:同じファンクション内のdist = rs.Distance(self.pos,b.pos)についてですが
この文章も for b in balls によってbはBallのインスタンスであると定義?されたためb.posがbの位置であると分かるのでしょうか?
pythonは定義しなくても動いてしまうのでどのような時に使えるのか文章見ただけではよくわかりません・・・
大変細かいことかもしれませんが、よりpythonをしっかりと理解するためにも、どなたかわかる方ご教授いただけると幸いです。…
.components as ghimport karamba
I have copied all the folder named '64bit' in grasshopper library folder (items are not in a sub-folder). The karamba.py gives me back an in-script error, i.e.
Runtime error (ImportException): No module named _karambaTraceback:line 20, in swig_import_helper, "C:\Users\Claudio\AppData\Roaming\Grasshopper\Libraries\karamba.py"line 28, in <module>, "C:\Users\Claudio\AppData\Roaming\Grasshopper\Libraries\karamba.py"line 2, in script
Just wondering if I could have an help about this. I tried the IronPython example, but it keeps saying that the karamba.gha does not exist in my plugin folder (but it's there). This occurs on line 3 of your example on the operation clr.AddReferenceToFileAndPath(*the path it finds*)
Many thanks
Claudio…
ers of the last surface in the Brep, however, only the corners of the bounding box of the surface are generated)
It seems the rs.SurfacePoints only returens the control points of a surface rather than the actual corners of the surface. Can you advise if there's a way to do it?
Thank you!
Code:
import rhinoscriptsyntax as rsall_parts = rs.ExplodePolysurfaces(brep)centers = []vectors = []lines = []vertices = []cnt = 0for part in all_parts: center, err = rs.SurfaceAreaCentroid(part) centers.append(center) #rs.AddText(str(cnt), center) uv = rs.SurfaceClosestPoint(part, center) vector = rs.SurfaceNormal(part, uv) vectors.append(vector) N_start = center N_end = rs.VectorAdd(center, vector) line = rs.AddLine(N_start, N_end) lines.append(line) #vertices = rs.SurfacePoints(part) vertices = rs.SurfaceEditPoints(part) cnt +=1#C = centers#N = vectors#L = linesV = vertices#todo:#explore the surface methods in rhinoscript.surface...#import rhinoscript.surface.…
Added by Grasshope at 10:34pm on September 15, 2015
oo culm and the web is mad of bamboo slats connected to the culms on either side of the attachment points. To make things clearer (extracted from the above paper):
The authors of the paper did a numerical beam-model in ANSYS to see if they could replicate their theoretical results, and it is fairly correct (some differences due to the non-linear behavior of the semi-ring joints that they use, they remain of an order of 5-10% difference in maximum deflection).
My problem is that I am not able to obtain the same deflection values that the authors did (11.4 mm for a total service load of 7.063 kN applied punctually on the upper chord where the truss elements meet, or even replicate the load/deflection curve). Using an orthotropic material, with the engineering constants taken from (ResearchGate - A bamboo Beam-Column Connection Capable to Transmit Moment), my model is too flexible and I get a maximum deflection of 24.28 mm. I tried other orthotropic mechanical characterizations from other sources (Kathry & Mishra, 2012, Finite element analysis of bamboo and joints using steel members under various loading conditions for design study and Chand , Shukla & Sharma, 2008, Analysis of Mechanical Behaviour of Bamboo (Dendrocalamus strictus) by Using FEM), to no avail.
Of course, the problem could be with the material properties I inputted but I am trying to contact the research team to see directly with them. In the meantime, I am looking to make sure the model itself is not flawed.
It also seems to me that gravity was not accounted for in the numerical of the paper, but it seemed to much of an oversight to be possible (still, the deflection curve of their paper goes through 0).
There are several points I am not quite sure about: after all I am still fairly new to Karamba3D and may still have some things to learn about the inner mechanics of the plugin.
The very first is: should I put eccentricities of the slat-elements of the truss in the definition of their cross-section (directly with the Cross Section box) or as an offset of the beam element (with the ModifyElem box)? I tried both approaches and they seem to yield similar results (max. deflection change by 0.65mm in my latest model).
Second is: is it good practice to subdivide the beam elements in more than one element (and connecting the pieces rigidly) in order to get better results? I imagine some meshing or subdivision is performed when the analysis is run but there is no way of visualizing it (that I found in any case). Subdividing the chord elements seems to give smoother deformation results (though I did not check stress I have to admit). My issue on this topic is that the subdivision of the slat-elements of the web is problematic. On the screenshot below, where the elements are divided in two, lets take the example of node 18. It seems to me that all elements of the diagonal element (28, 29, 34 & 35) are all rigidly connected to the node 18. 28 & 29 are not connected together, independently from 34 & 35. The added rigidity may not be a bad thing for my model, but it is not correct I think? Is there a way of solving the problem?
Element tags:
Node tags:
And here is my GH file (clean enough hopefully): verification-model-V04.gh
Thank you all in advance for any insight (even on the inner logics of Karamba)!
…