reaky thing consisting from triangulated "modules" (i.e an assembly out of this, this and that) where the exterior edges ARE always under tension (= SS 304/316 cables OR nylon) and the interior ones MAY be under compression ( = steel, aluminum, wood, carbon) OR ... some of them ...may be under tension. Bastardized T trusses deviate a bit from theory ... but who cares? (not me anyway). T trusses have many variants (but as the greatest ever said: Less is More).
2. Large scale T for AEC is the art of pointless since it costs around the GNP of Nigeria. Here's some indicative components from a module of a multi adjustable TX system costing (the module) ~ the price of my Panigale (Google that):
The above is mailed to a friend who has MIT (yes, that MIT: the top dog) on sight ... therefor he needs some appropriate "credentials", he he.
3. The distance that separates the above with the demo TDT node provided is around 666.666 miles - but we don't care: we are after Art not some testimony to vanity.
4. On purpose I've used a smallish ring to give you a clear indication upon the constrain numero uno in truss design: CLASH matters.
5. You'll need:
(a) A decision related with the tensioners (classic Norseman + SS cables or nylon machined thingies?).
(b) A machinist who can do elementary stuff (like the adapters) and can weld this to that (the "ring" for instance). His abilities must be 1 in a scale of 100. If the fella has a computer (not a CRAY) and he knows what 3dPDF is (hmm) ... well ... use that way to communicate with him PRIOR designing anything: He must agree on the parts BEFORE the whole is attempted (as a design in GH or in some other app).
(c) A carpenter with a wood lathe for the obvious. BTW: BEFORE doing any TDT attempt > ask the carpenter about the available wood strut sizes. Against popular belief DO NOT varnish the wood (use exterior alkyd/oil stains from some top maker like the notorious US company PPG).
http://www.ppgpaints.com/products/paints-stains-data-sheets
(d) Good quality cigars (and espresso) plus some classic music (ZZTop, PFloyd, Cure, Stones, U2 etc etc) during the assembly.
(e) Faith to the Dark Side (see my avatar).
May the Force (the dark option) be with you.…
rtitions." (http://wias-berlin.de/software/index.jsp?id=TetGen&lang=1)
To continue with my wrapping career, TetRhino (or Tetrino) is a .NET wrapper for the well-known and pretty amazing TetGen mesh tetrahedralization program. It provides one new GH component for discretizing or remeshing objects using TetGen. Basic tetrahedralization functionality is exposed with a few different output types that can be controlled. At the moment, the only control for tetrahedra sizes is the minimum ratio, which is controlled by a slider. This is hardcoded to always be above 1.0-1.1, as it is very easy to generate a LOT of data (and crash)...
The libs are divided again into different modules to allow flexibility and fun with or without Rhino and GH, so have fun. All 4 libs should be placed in a folder (maybe called 'tetgen') in your GH libraries folder. Remember to unblock.
Once again, the libs are provided as-is, with no guarantee of support for now, as I use them internally and do not intend to develop this into a shiny, polished plug-in. If there is enough interest, I can tidy up the code-base and upload it somewhere if someone more savvy than me wants to play.
TetgenGH.gha - Grasshopper assembly which adds the 'Tetrahedralize' component to Mesh -> Triangulation.
TetgenRC.dll - RhinoCommon interface to the Tetgen wrapper.
TetgenSharp.dll - dotNET wrapper for Tetgen.
TetgenWrapper.dll - Actual wrapper for Tetgen.
Obviously, credit where credit is due for this excellent and tiny piece of software:
"The development of TetGen is executed at the Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics in the research group of Numerical Mathematics and Scientific Computing." See http://wias-berlin.de/software/index.jsp?id=TetGen&lang=1 for more details about TetGen.
To wrap up, some notes about the inputs:
These are the possible integer Flags (F) values and resultant outputs for the GH component:
0 - Output M yields a closed boundary mesh. Useful for simply remeshing your input mesh.
1 - Output M yields a list of tetra meshes.
2 - Output I yields a DataTree of tetra indices, grouped in lists of 4. Output P yields a list of points to which the tetra indices correspond.
3 - Output I yields a DataTree of edge indices, grouped in lists of 2. Output P yields a list of points to which the edge indices correspond. Useful for lots of things, very easy to create lines from this to plug into K2 or something for some ropey FEA (or not so ropey!) ;)
As this component can potentially create a LOT of data, especially with dense meshes, care should be taken with the MinRatio (R) input. This will try to constrain the tetra to be more or less elongated, which also means that the lower this value gets, the more tetra need to be added to satisfy this constraint. Start with very high values and lower them until satisfactory.
Hopefully shouldn't be an issue, but it's possible that you need the 2015 Microsoft C++ Redistributable.
Happy tetrahedralizing...
UPDATE: The tetgen.zip has been updated with some fixes.
UPDATE2: This is now available on Food4Rhino: http://www.food4rhino.com/app/tetrino
…
Added by Tom Svilans at 1:27am on October 24, 2017
ou mean by 'Activate Direct Rhino Modifying'. Perhaps you could expand?
I like the idea of mixing and matching script and 'direct' modeling. There seems to be a lot of potential platforms for this:
1. Implict History: Is there a way for GH to read the direct modifications (with History activated) and translate this as a component (or cluster of components?)? IH seems to record the UI events and the associated elements. GH would need to write as well as read the IH info, in order to preserve as much flexibility downstream as possible. You mentioned Houdini. H seems to record all 'implicit' or direct mods, done via the CAD mouse-based UI, in its network graph. Maybe, this should be captured in the IH cluster/component mentioned above.
2. RhinoParametrics: RP has done a lot of work to intercept and translate Rhino commands into its version of Implicit History. Seems to be centred on points, which makes sense as so much of the traditional 'dumb' way of inputing CAD info is based on mouse clicks on screen (points) predicated by commands, active locks, workplanes etc.
3. Gumball: Rubberduck's use of the new Gumball tool to capture 'direct' modeling inputs thru the Gumball points to a good source for capturing this kind or input, that is related to the 'macro recorder' approach taken by RP and IH.
4. The new Geom Cache component seems to be able to preserve a lot of info about the baked object. There may be even a way to read tagged info generated both GH baked with the "reference" object, and external to GH (by IH, the gumball or even third party apps like RP).
Would be interesting to know what kind of info is 'preserved'. Houdini seems to have a pretty consistent approach to geometric data, that seems to allow parallel NURBS/subD/mesh versions of the geometry. It also seems to have a coherent heirarchical approach to vertices/edges/loops/faces etc that allows the subelements to be arbitarily grouped for 'direct' modeling, and still be part of a procedural script.
I guess the polygon / mesh approach to geometry lends itself to this. If all the procedural commands/components all understand mesh geometry in either vertex, edge, face format, then combining direct and script modeling is doable in transparent way?
In your example above, the Geo Cache node 'flattens' the object to dumb geometry which is manipulated using Rhino, then used as a Reference object, in the next section of the graph. I guess there is nothing to stop the follow on components reading the precedenting graph for parameters, for additional intelligence?
Does GH 'get' or 'put' parameter data?
…
can work in any node of a given hierarchy tree (loaded in your work session) by making the node "active". "Nodes" can be other things as well (like workplane, clip definitions etc).
Why to do that weird thing? Well, think any design being "flat" > meaning that all objects are placed in a single file (and in a single layer). Not that good > although the items are present you barely can handle them (because power is nothing without control, he he).
Let's go one step further: we can start classifying objects in "groups" (like a directories/files organization in any O/S). This means, in MCAD speak, creating assemblies (a void thing kinda like a directory) that contain components/entities (kinda like files).
Several steps further we end up with severely nested "arrangements" of entities (an assembly could be parent of something and child of something else).
For instance, it could be rather obvious the logical classification of a "geodetic" (so to speak) structure like this : a 40000m2 "hangar" defining some thematic park.
I mean : a void master that owns 4 equal void segment sets that own 4 "legs" that own various geodesic structural members + cables + membranes + you name it etc etc.
Each "leg" owns the concrete base (Shared) and a rather complex set of objects.
Notice that some tensile membrane "fixture" combos (see above)...act as perimeter light fixtures as well...meaning that the membrane tension plate may could be a child of a void "light" parent...or may could be a "stand alone" assembly etc etc.
These arrangements can be internal (belonging in, say, a x node within the current active file) or external (belonging in a y node within another file). If they deal with the same (topologically speaking) object they define clusters of Shared entities (or variations)- where only the view transformation matrix changes (in the simple scenario, he he). For instance the disk shown above is a Shared Assembly that owns the bolts, the plates, the tension member etc etc. Selective Instancing allows modifying some attributes without affecting the topology (i.e. the geometry).
The whole (terrible) mess is controlled by some tree like "dialog" (in Catia is "transparent") that is called Structure Browser. By controlled I mean (1) display/display mode with regard any tree member combo/selection set (assembly and/or component) in any View (2) clip state control (3) active status (for modifications/variations) (4) workplane control (5) drag and drop ownership control (6) ....
Now...what if I would chan…
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
n fact) according a vast variety of "modes" PLUS the required clash detection (ALWAYS via trigonometry). In plain English: outline any collection of Breps and "apply" a truss that is topologically sound (planarization in case of quads etc is an added constrain). PLUS outline/solve what comes "next" after that truss (like the planar glazing "add-on" brackets of yours [ the ones that need redesign, he he], or some roofing/facade skin system [secondary supports, corrugated sheet metal, insulation, final cladding, dogs and cats])
2. Imaging doing this in real life (nothing to do with "abstract" formations of "lines" or "shapes" or whatever). This means primarily adopting a BIM umbrella: in plain English AECOSim, Revit or Allplan (I'm a Bentley man so I use AECOSim + Generative Components). This also means using "in-parallel" a top MCAD app for 1:1 details, FEA/FIM and the vast paraphernalia required for real-life studies destined for real-life projects (made with real-life money by real-life people). My choice: CATIA/Siemens NX.
3. What to send to Microstation (if not using Generative Components, that is) and/or CATIA? In what "state"? To do what exactly? For instance even if you could design this feature driven tensile membrane anchor custom node in Rhino (you can't) it could be 100% useless in CATIA:
4. Imaging masterminding ways to send them nested instance definitions of ... er ... a coordinate system (all what you need). In plain English: since is utterly pointless to send them nested blocks that can't been parametrically controlled (variations/modifications/PLM management/BOM/specs etc etc)... send them simply the "instructions" to place coordinate systems of components that ARE parametrically designed within Microstation and/or CATIA (classic feature driven design approach blah blah). So GH solves topology et all (working on data imported via, say, Excel sheets related with sizes of components etc etc) and sends to Microstation simply this (a myriad of "this" actually):
I do hope that the gist of the "method" (the ONLY way to invite GH to the party) is clear.
best, Peter…
e chosen to dive into Grasshopper. I’m about 6 months in. If some of my comments are completely off, please take that to mean that a feature is too inaccessible to a newish user rather that it’s just missing, as I may have stated.
One of my primary pain points is this. Things that can be done in other programs are invariably easier in other programs. This is a big enough issue that I doubt there’s an easy solution that an armchair qb like myself can offer up.
The interface:
I’ve used a lot of 3D programs. I’ve never encountered one as difficult as grasshopper. What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design. Yet PTC (Parametric Technology Corp.) has been doing parametric design software since 1985 and has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others.
In the early 2000's, when parametric design software was all the rage, McNeel stated quite strongly the Rhino would remain a direct modeler and would not become a parametric modeler. Trends come. Trends go. And the industry has been swinging back to direct modeling. So McNeel’s decision was probably ok. But I have to wonder if part of McNeel’s reluctance to incorporate some of the tried and proven ideas of other parametric packages doesn't have roots in their earlier declaration to not incorporate parametrics.
A Visual Programming Language:
I read a lot about the awesomeness and flexibility of Grasshopper being a visual programming language. Let’s be clear, this is DOS era speak. I believe GH should continue to have the ability to be extended and massaged with code, as most design programs do. But as long as this is front and center, GH will remain out of reach to the average designer.
Context sensitivity:
There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them.
Sliders:
I hate sliders. I understand them, but I hate ‘em. I think they should be optional. Ya, I know I can r-click on the N of a component and set the integer. It’s a pain, and it gives no feedback. The “N” should turn into the number if set. AAAnd, sliders should be context sensitive. I like that the name of a slider changes when I plug it into something. But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly. I shouldn't be able to plug in a “50” and have everything after turn red.
Components:
Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings.
And this item I’m guessing on. I’m not yet good enough at GH to know if this may have adverse effects. Reverse, Flatten, Graft, etc.; could these be context sensitive? Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?
Tighter integration with Rhino:
I'm not entirely certain what this would look like. Currently my work flow entails baking, making a few Rhino edits, and reinserting into GH. I question the whole baking thing, btw. Why isn't it just live geometry? That’s how other parametric apps work. Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset. I have to bake, offsetserf, and reinsert the geometry. I’m currently looking at the “Geometry Cache” and “Geometry Pipeline” components to see if they help. But I haven't been able to figure it out. Which leads me to:
Update all of the documentation:
I'm guessing this is an in process thing and you're working toward rolling GH from 0.9.00075 to 1.0. GH was being updated nearly weekly earlier this year. Then it suddenly stopped. If we're talking weeks before a full release, so be it. But if we're looking at something longer, a documentation update would help a lot. Geometry Cache and Geometry Pipeline’s help still read “This is the autogenerated help topic for this object. Developers: override the HtmlHelp_Source() function in the base class to provide custom help.” This does not help. And the Grasshopper Primer 2nd Ed. was written for GH 0.60007.
Grasshopper is fundamentally a 2D program:
I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen? Pretty much every 3D program in existence has this. I’m sure I can probably figure out how to deconstruct the breps, join the curves, loft, trim, and so forth. But does writing an algorithm to do what all other 3D programs do with a dialog box seem reasonable? I'm sure if you go command by command you'll find a ton on such things.
If you look at the vast majority of things done in GH, you'll note that they're mostly either flat or a fundamentally 2D pattern on a warped surface.
I've been working on a part that is a 3D voronoi trimmed to a 3D model. I've been trying to turn the trimmed voronoi into legitimate geometry for over a month without success.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/profiles/blogs/question-voronoi-3d-continued
I’ve researched it enough to have found many others have had the exact same problem and have not solved it. It’s really not that conceptually difficult. But GH lacks the tools.
Make screen organization easier:
I have a touch of OCD, and I like my GH layout to flow neatly. Allow input/output nodes to be re-ordered. This will allow a reduction in crossed wires. Make the wire positions a bit more editable. I sometimes use a geometry component as a wire anchor to clean things up. Being able to grab a wire and pull it out of the way would be kinda nice.
I think GH has some awesome abilities. I also think accessing those abilities could be significantly easier.
~p…
e a fundamental failure on my part. On the other hand, Grasshopper isn't supposed to be on a par with most other 3D programs. It is emphatically not meant for manual/direct modelling. If you would normally tackle a problem by drawing geometry by hand, Grasshopper is not (and should never be advertised as) a good alternative.
I get that. That’s why that 3D shape I’m trying to apply the voronoi to was done in NX. I do wonder where the GUI metaphor GH uses comes from. It reminds me of LabVIEW.
"What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design."
Grasshopper ships with about 1000 components (rounded to the nearest power of ten). I'm adding more all the time, either because new functionality has been exposed in the Rhino SDK or because a certain component makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Adding pre-canned components that do the same as '8 or 10 components strung together' for the heck of it will balloon the total number of components everyone has to deal with. If you find yourself using the same 8 to 10 components together all the time, then please mention it on this forum. A lot of the currently existing components have been added because someone asked for it.
It’s not the primary components that catalyzed this thought but rather the secondary components. I was toying with a component today (twist from jackalope) that made use of three toggle components. The things they controlled are checkboxes in other apps.
Take a look at this jpg. Ignore differences; I did 'em quickly. GH required 19 components to do what SW did with 4 commands. Note the difference in screen real estate.
As an aside, I really hate SolidWorks (SW). But going forward, I’ll use it as an example because it’s what most people are familiar with.
"[...] has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others."
Again, GH was not designed to be an alternative to these sort of modellers. I don't like referring to GH as 'parameteric' as that term has been co-opted by relational modellers. I prefer to use 'algorithmic' instead. The idea behind parameteric seems to be that one models by hand, but every click exists within a context, and when the context changes the software figures out where to move the click to. The idea behind algorithmic is that you don't model by hand.
I agree, and disagree. I believe parametric applies equally to GH AND SW, NX, and so forth, while algorithmic is unique to GH (and GC and Dynamo I think). Thus I understand why you prefer the term. I too tend to not like referring to GH as a parametric modeler for the same reason.
But I think it oversimplifies it to say parametric modelers move the clicks. SW tracks clicks the same way GH does; GH holds that information in geometry components while SW holds it in a feature in the feature tree. In both GH and SW edits to the base geometry will drive a recalculation, but more commonly, it’s an edit to input data, beit equations or just plain numbers, that drive a recalculation.
I understand the difference in these programs. What brought me to GH is that it can create a visual dialog that standard modelers can’t. But as I've grown more comfortable with it I’ve come to realize that the GUI of GH and the GUI of other parametric modelers, while looking completely different, are surprisingly interchangeable. Do not misconstrue that I’m suggesting that GH should replace it’s GUI with SW’s. I’m not. I refrain from suggesting anything specific. I only suggest that you allow yourself to think radically.
This is not to say there is no value in the parametric approach. Obviously it is a winning strategy and many people love to use it. We have considered adding some features to GH that would make manual modelling less of a chore and we would still very much like to do so. However this is such a large chunk of work that we have to be very careful about investing the time. Before I start down this road I want to make sure that the choice I'm making is not 'lame-ass algorithmic modeller with some lame-ass parametrics tacked on' vs. 'kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on'.
Given a choice, I'd pick kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on.
2. Visual Programming.
I'm not exactly sure I understand your grievance here, but I suspect I agree. The visual part is front and centre at the moment and it should remain there. However we need to improve upon it and at the same time give programmers more tools to achieve what they want.
I'll admit, this is a bit tough to explain. As I've re-read my own comment, I think it was partly a precursor to the context sensitivity point and touched upon other stated points.
This now touches upon my own ignorance about GH’s target market. Are you moving toward a highly specialized tool for programmers and/or mathematicians, or is the intent to create a tool that most designers can master? If it’s the former, rock on. You’re doing great. If it’s the latter, I’m one of the more technically sophisticated designers I know and I’m lost most of the time when using GH.
GH allows the same freedom as a command line editor. You can do whatever you like, and it’ll work or not. And you won’t know why it works or doesn't until you start becoming a bit of an expert and can actually decipher the gibberish in a panel component. I often feel GH has the ease of use of DOS with a badass video card in front.
Please indulge my bit of storytelling. Early 3D modelers, CATIA, Unigraphics, and Pro-Engineer, were unbelievably difficult to use. Yet no one ever complained. The pain of entry was immense. But once you made it past the pain threshold, the salary you could command was very well worth it. And the fewer the people who knew how to use it, the more money you could demand. So in a sense, their lack of usability was a desirable feature among those who’d figured it out.
Then SolidWorks came along. It could only do a fraction of what the others did, but it was a fraction of the cost, it did most of what you needed, and anyone could figure it out. There was even a manual on how to use it. (Craziness!) Within a few short years, the big three all had to change their names (V5, NX, and Wildfire (now Creo)) and change the way they do things. All are now significantly easier to use.
I can tell that the amount of development time that’s gone into GH is immense and I believe the functionality is genius. I also believe it’s ease of use could be greatly improved.
Having re-read my original comments, I think it sounded a bit snotty. For that I apologize.
3. Context sensitivity.
"There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them."
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Whether or not a conversion between two data types makes sense is often dependent on the actual values. If you plug a list of curves into a Line component, none of them may be convertible. Should I therefore not allow this connection to be made? What if there is a single curve that could be converted to a line? What if you want to make the connection now, but only later plan to add some convertible curves to the data? What you made the connection back when it was valid, but now it's no longer valid, wouldn't it be weird if there was a connection you couldn't make again?
I've started work on GH2 and one of the first things I'm writing now is the new data-conversion logic. The goal [...] is to not just try and convert type A into type B, but include information about what sort of conversion was needed (straightforward, exotic, far-fetched. etc.) and information regarding why that type was assigned.
You are right that under some conditions, we can be sure that a conversion will always fail. For example connecting a Boolean output with a Curve input. But even there my preferred solution is to tell people why that doesn't make sense rather than not allowing it in the first place.
You bring up both interesting points and limits to my understanding of coding. I’ve reached the point in my learning of GH where I’m just getting into figuring out the sets tab (and so far I’m not doing too well). I often find myself wondering “Is all of this manual conditioning of the data really necessary? Doesn’t most software perform this kind of stuff invisibly?” I’d love to be right and see it go away, but I could easily be wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
5. Components.
"Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings."
I was thinking of just zooming in on a component would eventually provide easier ways to access settings and data.
I kinda like this. It’s a continuation of what you’re currently doing with things like the panel component.
"Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?"
It's almost impossible for me to know whether these things are 'unlikely' in any given situation. There are probably some cases where a suggestion along the lines of "Hey, this component is about to run 40,524 times. It seems like it would make sense to Graft the 'P' input." would be useful.
6. Integration.
"Why isn't it just live geometry?"
This is an unfortunate side-effect of the way the Rhino SDK was designed. Pumping all my geometry through the Rhino document would severely impact performance and memory usage. It also complicates the matter to an almost impossible degree as any command and plugin running in Rhino now has access to 'my' geometry.
"Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset."
That's the plan moving forward. A lot of algorithms in Rhino (Make2D, FilletEdge, Shelling, BlendSrf, the list goes on) are not available as part of the public SDK. The Rhino development team is going to try and rectify this for Rhino6 and beyond. As soon as these functions become available I'll start adding them to GH (provided they make sense of course).
On the whole I agree that integration needs a lot of work, and it's work that has to happen on both sides of the isle.
You work for McNeel yet you seem to speak of them as a separate entity. Is this to say that there are technical reasons GH can only access things through the Rhino SDK? I’d think you would have complete access to all Rhino API’s. I hope it’s not a fiefdom issue, but it happens.
7. Documentation.
Absolutely. Development for GH1 has slowed because I'm now working on GH2. We decided that GH1 is 'feature complete', basically to avoid feature creep. GH2 is a ground-up rewrite so it will take a long time until something is ready for testing. During this time, minor additions and of course bug fixes will be available for GH1, but on a much lower frequency.
Documentation is woefully inadequate at present. The primer is being updated (and the new version looks great), but for GH2 we're planning a completely new help system. People have been hired to provide the content. With a bit of luck and a lot of work this will be one of the main selling points of GH2.
It begs the question that I have to ask. When is GH1.0 scheduled to launch? And if you need another person to proofread the current draft of new primer.
patrick@girgen.com
I can’t believe wikipedia has an entry for feature creep. And I can’t believe you included it. It made me giggle. Thanks.
8. 2D-ness.
"I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen?"
I don't fully disagree. A lot of geometry is either flat or happens inside surfaces. The reason there's no shelling (I'm assuming that's what you meant, there are two Offset Surface components in GH) is because (a) it's a very new feature in Rhino and doesn't work too well yet and (b) as a result of that isn't available to plugins.
I believe it’s been helpful for me to have figured this out. I recently completed a GH course at a local Community College and have done a bunch of online tutorials. The first real project I decided to tackle has turned out to be one of the more difficult things to try. It’s the source of the questions I posted. (Thanks for pointing out that they were posted in the wrong spot. I re-posted to the discussions board.)
I just can't seem to figure out how to turn the voronoi into legitimate geometry. I've seen this exact question posted a few times, but it’s never been successfully answered. What I'm showing here is far more angular than I’m hoping for. The mesh is too fine for weaverbird to have much of an effect. And I haven't cracked re-meshing. Btw, in product design, meshes are to be avoided like the plague. Embracing them remains difficult.
As for offsetsurf, in Rhino, if you do an offsetsurf to a solid body, it executes it on all sides creating another neatly trimmed body thats either larger or smaller than the original. This is how every other app I know of works. GH’s offsetsurf creates a bunch of unjoined faces spaced away from the original brep. A common technique for 3D voronois (Yes, I hit the voronoi overuse easter egg) is to find the center of each cell and scale them by this center. If you think about it, this creates a different distance from the face of the scaled cell to the face of the original cell for every face. As I've mentioned, this project is giving me serious headaches.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback, I really do, but I want to be honest and open about my own plans and where they might conflict with your wishes. Grasshopper is being used far beyond the boundaries of what we expected and it's clear that there are major shortcomings that must be addressed before too long. We didn't get it right with the first version, I don't expect we'll get it completely right with the second version but if we can improve upon the -say- five biggest drawbacks (performance, documentation, organisation, plugin management and no mac version) I'll be a happy puppy.
--
David Rutten
Thank you for taking the time to reply David. Often we feel that posting such things is send it into the empty ether. I’m very glad that this was not the case.
And thank you for all of the work you've put into GH. If you found any of my input overly harsh or ill-mannered, I apologise. It was not my intent. I'm generally not the ranting sort. If I hadn't intended to provide possibly useful input, I wouldn't have written.
Cheers
Patrick Girgen
Ps. Any pointers on how to get a bit further on the above project would be greatly appreciated.
…
a problem with SSL. Any Ideas? I am using the following code:
import json,httplib connection = httplib.HTTPSConnection('api.parse.com', 443) connection.connect() connection.request('GET', '/1/classes/MY-CLASS', '', { "X-Parse-Application-Id": "MY-APP-ID", "X-Parse-REST-API-Key": "MY-REST-API-KEY" }) result = json.loads(connection.getresponse().read()) print result
I Get the Following Messages:
Runtime error (IOException): Authentication failed because the remote party has closed the transport stream. Traceback: line 280, in do_handshake, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5.0 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\ssl.py" line 120, in __init__, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5.0 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\ssl.py" line 336, in wrap_socket, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5.0 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\ssl.py" line 1156, in connect, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5.0 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\httplib.py" line 3, in script Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance! -Zach…
t. So here we go!
1. Honeybee is brown and not yellow [stupid!]...
As you probably remember Honeybee logo was initially yellow because of my ignorance about Honeybees. With the help of our Honeybee expert, Michalina, now the color is corrected. I promised her to update everyone about this. Below are photos of her working on the honeybee logo and the results of her study.
If you think I'm exaggerating by calling her a honeybee expert you better watch this video:
Thank you Michalina for the great work! :). I corrected the colors. No yellow anymore. The only yellow arrows represent sun rays and not the honeybee!
2. Yellow or brown, W[here]TH Honeybee is?
I know. It has been a long time after I posted the initial video and it is not fun at all to wait for a long time. Here is the good news. If you are following the Facebook page you probably now that the Daylighting components are almost ready.
Couple of friends from Grasshopper community and RADIANCE community has been helping me with testing/debugging the components. I still think/hope to release the daylighting components at some point in January before Ladybug gets one year old.
There have been multiple changes. I finally feel that the current version of Honeybee is simple enough for non-expert users to start running initial studies and flexible enough for advanced users to run advanced studies. I will post a video soon and walk you through different components.
I think I still need more time to modify the energy simulation components so they are not going to be part of the next release. Unfortunately, there are so many ways to set up and run a wrong energy simulation and I really don’t want to add one new GIGO app to the world of simulation. We already have enough of that. Moreover I’m still not quite happy with the workflow. Please bear with me for few more months and then we can all celebrate!
I recently tested the idea of connecting Grasshopper to OpenStudio by using OpenStudio API successfully. If nothing else, I really want to release the EnergyPlus components so I can concentrate on Grasshopper > OpenStudio development which I personally think is the best approach.
3. What about wind analysis?
I have been asked multiple times that if Ladybug will have a component for wind study. The short answer is YES! I have been working with EFRI-PULSE project during the last year to develop a free and open source web-based CFD simulation platform for outdoor analysis.
We had a very good progress so far and our rockstar Stefan recently presented the results of the work at the American Physical Society’s 66th annual DFD meeting and the results looks pretty convincing in comparison to measured data. Here is an image from the presentation. All the credits go to Stefan Gracik and EFRI-PULSE project.
The project will go live at some point next year and after that I will release the Butterfly which will let you prepare the model for the CFD simulation and send it to EFRI-PULSE project. I haven’t tried to run the simulations locally yet but I’m considering that as a further development. Here is how the component and the logo looks like right now.
4. Teaching resources
It has been almost 11 months from the first public release of Ladybug. I know that I didn't do a good job in providing enough tutorials/teaching materials and I know that I won’t be able to put something comprehensive together soon.
Fortunately, ladybug has been flying in multiple schools during the last year. Several design, engineering and consultant firms are using it and it has been thought in several workshops. As I checked with multiple of you, almost everyone told me that they will be happy to share their teaching materials; hence I started the teaching resources page. Please share your materials on the page. They can be in any format and any language. Thanks in advance!
I hope you enjoyed/are enjoying/will enjoy the longest night of the year. Happy Yalda!
Cheers,
-Mostapha
…