ow the steps of the successful run when step 1.2 is bypassed (note that the and OpenFOAM session is open in the background while running the Butterfly demo file):
1. create wind tunnel, and use different parameters of (4,4) for _globalRefLevel_ as suggested by Theodoro in this post
2. run blockMesh:
3. run snappyHexMesh:
4. run checkMesh:
5. connect the case from checkMesh to simpleFOAM and run the simulation:
6. the simulation converged at 1865 iteration, but the results visualization part has some problem:
7. so I revised this part according to suggestions from Hagit:
8. and the results can be visualized for P and U values:
The GH file used for the successful run shown above is attached here.
Now, the following is the error I got when the case from the update fvScheme component is used for simpleFOAM simulation:
the warning message on the simpleFOAM component is:
1. Solution exception: --> OpenFOAM command Failed!#0 Foam::error::printStack(Foam::Ostream&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #1 Foam::sigFpe::sigHandler(int) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #2 ? in "/lib64/libc.so.6" #3 double Foam::sumProd<double>(Foam::UList<double> const&, Foam::UList<double> const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #4 Foam::PCG::solve(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #5 Foam::GAMGSolver::solveCoarsestLevel(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #6 Foam::GAMGSolver::Vcycle(Foam::PtrList<Foam::lduMatrix::smoother> const&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::PtrList<Foam::Field<double> >&, Foam::PtrList<Foam::Field<double> >&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #7 Foam::GAMGSolver::solve(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #8 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solveSegregated(Foam::dictionary const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libfiniteVolume.so" #9 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solve(Foam::dictionary const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #10 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solve() in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #11 ? in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #12 __libc_start_main in "/lib64/libc.so.6" #13 ? in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam"
The error message from the readMe! output node is attached below as a text file.
Hope you can kindly advise what the important steps or parameters I might have missed here. I assume it might be related to OpenFOAM rather than with the Butterfly workflow...
Thank you very much!
- Ji
…
is set up to manipulate strings into an STL file that is quite different from how Grasshopper defines meshes, in that an STL seems to define each face by XYZ points, Grasshopper wants a single list of all vertex points and then has an allied lists of topological connectivity according to vertex number, so for now I just hacked it to spit out points minus so many duplicates it generates for STL:
Right now it has an internal 3D trigonometric function I added input sliders to control, that creates surfaces that look a lot like molecular orbitals.
So how do I make a mesh? I failed to make a single mesh face from each STL face since AddMesh seems to want a list, so I tried making a single list and matching it with a simple ((1,2,3),(4,5,6),(7,8,9)...) array of connectivity but it hasn't worked yet since the STL list of vertices has duplicates that won't work for Grasshopper and removing the duplicates scrambles the connectivity relation.
After some work on this and seeing the output, I figure I could just randomly populate the mathematical function with points instead, unless it really gives a better mesh result than other routines. I'm not sure what to do with it yet, even if I get the mesh figured out.
import rhinoscriptsyntaximport RhinoPOINTS_CONTAINER =[]POINTS = []class Vector: # struct XYZ def __init__(self,x,y,z): self.x=x self.y=y self.z=z def __str__(self): return str(self.x)+" "+str(self.y)+" "+str(self.z) class Gridcell: # struct GRIDCELL def __init__(self,p,n,val): self.p = p # p=[8] self.n = n # n=[8] self.val = val # val=[8] class Triangle: # struct TRIANGLE def __init__(self,p1,p2,p3): self.p = [p1, p2, p3] # vertices # HACK TO GRAB VERTICES FOR PYTHON OUTPUT POINTS_CONTAINER.append( (p1.x,p1.y,p1.z) ) POINTS_CONTAINER.append( (p2.x,p2.y,p2.z) ) POINTS_CONTAINER.append( (p3.x,p3.y,p3.z) )# return a 3d list of values def readdata(f=lambda x,y,z:x*x+y*y+z*z,size=5.0,steps=11): m=int(steps/2) ki = [] for i in range(steps): kj = [] for j in range(steps): kd=[] for k in range(steps): kd.append(f(size*(i-m)/m,size*(j-m)/m,size*(k-m)/m)) kj.append(kd) ki.append(kj) return ki from math import sin,cos,exp,atan2 def lobes(x,y,z): try: theta = atan2(x,y) # sin t = o except: theta = 0 try: phi = atan2(z,y) except: phi = 0 r = x*x+y*y+z*z ct=cos(PARAMETER_A * theta) cp=cos(PARAMETER_B * phi) return ct*ct*cp*cp*exp(-r/10) def main(): data = readdata(lobes,10,40) isolevel = 0.1 #print(data) triangles=[] for i in range(len(data)-1): for j in range(len(data[i])-1): for k in range(len(data[i][j])-1): p=[None]*8 val=[None]*8 #print(i,j,k) p[0]=Vector(i,j,k) val[0] = data[i][j][k] p[1]=Vector(i+1,j,k) val[1] = data[i+1][j][k] p[2]=Vector(i+1,j+1,k) val[2] = data[i+1][j+1][k] p[3]=Vector(i,j+1,k) val[3] = data[i][j+1][k] p[4]=Vector(i,j,k+1) val[4] = data[i][j][k+1] p[5]=Vector(i+1,j,k+1) val[5] = data[i+1][j][k+1] p[6]=Vector(i+1,j+1,k+1) val[6] = data[i+1][j+1][k+1] p[7]=Vector(i,j+1,k+1) val[7] = data[i][j+1][k+1] grid=Gridcell(p,[],val) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,2,3,7)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,2,6,7)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,4,6,7)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,6,1,2)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,0,6,1,4)) triangles.extend(PolygoniseTri(grid,isolevel,5,6,1,4)) def t000F(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [] def t0E01(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v1],g.val[v0],g.val[v1]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v2],g.val[v0],g.val[v2]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v3],g.val[v0],g.val[v3])) ] def t0D02(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v0],g.val[v1],g.val[v0]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v3],g.val[v1],g.val[v3]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v2],g.val[v1],g.val[v2])) ] def t0C03(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): tri=Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v3],g.val[v0],g.val[v3]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v2],g.val[v0],g.val[v2]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v3],g.val[v1],g.val[v3])) return [tri,Triangle( tri.p[2], VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v2],g.val[v1],g.val[v2]), tri.p[1]) ] def t0B04(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v0],g.val[v2],g.val[v0]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v1],g.val[v2],g.val[v1]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v3],g.val[v2],g.val[v3])) ] def t0A05(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): tri = Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v1],g.val[v0],g.val[v1]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v3],g.val[v2],g.val[v3]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v3],g.val[v0],g.val[v3])) return [tri,Triangle( tri.p[0], VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v2],g.val[v1],g.val[v2]), tri.p[1]) ] def t0906(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): tri=Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v1],g.val[v0],g.val[v1]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v1],g.p[v3],g.val[v1],g.val[v3]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v2],g.p[v3],g.val[v2],g.val[v3])) return [tri, Triangle( tri.p[0], VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v0],g.p[v2],g.val[v0],g.val[v2]), tri.p[2]) ] def t0708(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): return [Triangle( VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v3],g.p[v0],g.val[v3],g.val[v0]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v3],g.p[v2],g.val[v3],g.val[v2]), VertexInterp(iso,g.p[v3],g.p[v1],g.val[v3],g.val[v1])) ] trianglefs = {7:t0708,8:t0708,9:t0906,6:t0906,10:t0A05,5:t0A05,11:t0B04,4:t0B04,12:t0C03,3:t0C03,13:t0D02,2:t0D02,14:t0E01,1:t0E01,0:t000F,15:t000F} def PolygoniseTri(g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3): triangles = [] # Determine which of the 16 cases we have given which vertices # are above or below the isosurface triindex = 0; if g.val[v0] < iso: triindex |= 1 if g.val[v1] < iso: triindex |= 2 if g.val[v2] < iso: triindex |= 4 if g.val[v3] < iso: triindex |= 8 return trianglefs[triindex](g, iso, v0, v1, v2, v3) def VertexInterp(isolevel,p1,p2,valp1,valp2): if abs(isolevel-valp1) < 0.00001 : return(p1); if abs(isolevel-valp2) < 0.00001 : return(p2); if abs(valp1-valp2) < 0.00001 : return(p1); mu = (isolevel - valp1) / (valp2 - valp1) return Vector(p1.x + mu * (p2.x - p1.x), p1.y + mu * (p2.y - p1.y), p1.z + mu * (p2.z - p1.z)) if __name__ == "__main__": main() # GRASSHOPPER PYTHON OUTPUTPOINTS = rhinoscriptsyntax.AddPoints(POINTS_CONTAINER)POINTS = rhinoscriptsyntax.CullDuplicatePoints(POINTS)…
he "return" is comment out as shown below?
After restarting Rhino and Grasshopper, I opened the outdoors_airflow demo file, and the first step of creating the case file is ok:
Then the blockMesh component gives the following error: seems I have to manually start OF first..
so, as the error message suggested, I open OF by Start_OF.bat:
Then come back to the blockMesh component, now it can be executed while the OF command line window is also openning:
... and the blockMesh finished successfully:
... so I proceeded to run snappyHexMesh, checkMesh and update fvScheme:
... up to the simpleFoam component, I got the error again:
The warning message is:
1. Solution exception: --> OpenFOAM command Failed!#0 Foam::error::printStack(Foam::Ostream&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #1 Foam::sigFpe::sigHandler(int) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #2 ? in "/lib64/libc.so.6" #3 double Foam::sumProd<double>(Foam::UList<double> const&, Foam::UList<double> const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #4 Foam::PCG::solve(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #5 Foam::GAMGSolver::solveCoarsestLevel(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #6 Foam::GAMGSolver::Vcycle(Foam::PtrList<Foam::lduMatrix::smoother> const&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::PtrList<Foam::Field<double> >&, Foam::PtrList<Foam::Field<double> >&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #7 Foam::GAMGSolver::solve(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #8 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solveSegregated(Foam::dictionary const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libfiniteVolume.so" #9 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solve(Foam::dictionary const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #10 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solve() in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #11 ? in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #12 __libc_start_main in "/lib64/libc.so.6" #13 ? in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam"
... and the command lines in the readMe! output are pretty long and it is saved in the text file attached here.
So, my questions are:
1. why I have to manually start OF first before I can use the blockMesh component? Should butterfly automatically start OF?
2. what might be the cause of the unsuccessful run of simpleFoam in the end?
Hope you can kindly advise! Thank you!
- Ji
…
giornata inaugurale sarà dedicata alla free-lecture introduttiva finalizzata alla realizzazione di un modello d'architettura complesso attraverso l'utilizzo di comandi e tecniche avanzate di rappresentazione con Grasshopper (plug-in parametrica di Rhinoceros) e 3dsMax. Sarà illustrato inoltre il potenziale di V-ray per 3dsMax realizzando un rendering concettuale. Durante il mini-corso dell' openDAY verranno mostrate le caratteristiche e le potenzialità degli strumenti per far luce sui nuovi valori assunti dalla modellazione 3D. La modellazione 3D sta interessando un pubblico sempre più vasto inserendosi in una nuova fase di ampia disponibilità per conoscenze, software, hardware di prototipazione e modelli. Pur mantenendo tutti i suoi valori già noti la questione si è talmente ampliata fino ad interessare norme giuridiche (diritti sui modelli ,concorrenza con offerte di servizi apparentemente simili, informazioni deformate e onfusione nei media) Makers University[http://www.makersuniversity.com], in collaborazione con parametricart, vi propone un punto di vista ampio e sintetico su queste tematiche.
Al termine della free-lecture, sarà illustrata l'offerta formativa [CLICCA QUI] di parametricart riferita ai corsi che si terranno nei mesi di Gennaio e Febbraio 2013 inseriti all'interno della più ampia programmazione della Makers University. SONO PREVISTE TARIFFE PROMOZIONALI PER COLORO CHE SI ISCRIVERANNO AI CORSI durante l'OpenDAY.
La lezione e la presentazione si terranno nel nuovo spazio co-working il PEDONE.
PROGRAMMAZIONE
- I temi della Makers University [Leo Sorge];
- Modellazione della parametricTower (concept di architettura complessa) utilizzando Grasshopper, applicativo per la modellazione parametrica [VIDEO] [Michele Calvano];
- Modellazione di una copertura reticolare 3D a completamento della parametricTower con 3dsMax utilizzando tecniche di modellazione mesh complesse [Wissam Wahbeh];
- Rendering con V-ray per 3dsMax illustrando la nuova interfaccia nodale [Wissam Wahbeh].
- Question Time per chiarimenti sugli argomenti illustrati.
COME
L'openDAY sarà aperto a tutti gli interessati,completamente gratuito e sarà replicato in tre sessioni di uguali contenuti organizzate nei seguenti orari:
Sessione [1] 11,30 - 13,30
Sessione [2] 15,30 - 17,30
Sessione [3] 17,30 - 19,30
Per necessità di organizzazione è importante la prenotazione all'evento utilizzando il form in fondo alla pagina specificando nella stringa apposita, il nome dell'evento e la sessione (es. open day sessione 1) oltre agli altri dati richiesti.…
f objects with the main ring body, and that cannot be done in parallel since you are modifying the item once at a time, algorithmically.
The original example of a cylinder and sphere are textbook failures of the Rhino 5 dumb algorithm, since that combination features kissing surfaces that confuse Rhino about where they are intersecting since really in tolerance values they are overlapping along a ribbon instead of a sharp line.
Normally you would slightly move or rescale one of the pair to create a single loop intersection curve that doesn't wander around in jerky fashion trying to combine two surfaces that fail to actually plunge through one another.
Your main Boolean union is 116 prongs with a ring base, and that's slow because Rhino bogs down as the model gets more an more complicated with each internal step, I imagine.
The speed is not all that slow either, only 21 seconds for the Booleans themselves.
If you turn of Grasshopper preview meshing via the toolbar menu it should be significantly faster while you are tweaking the design.
To troubleshoot the slow Boolean, I went into Rhino and tried merely splitting the ring body with the prongs and that itself was just about as slow as the Boolean union, so Rhino is not being badass about it. Then I exploded the ring body and tried splitting just that with the prongs and it was *much* faster to operate on just that single surface! The black box reveals itself a bit.
In kind, splitting the prongs with that single surface was about the same speed as splitting it with the whole ring body, so no speed gain there.
But, to speed up your script, since we *cannot* in fact use parallel processing, we can instead manually create that prong surface by doing our own splits and using Grasshopper's natural order of parts, hopefully consistent, to get rid of the junk.
That prong surface is item 4 of an exploded object.
So I will mutually split them and tease out the good parts from the junk and then rejoin the parts, no Boolean union component needed.
First, I went into your prong cluster and removed the capping, so I have merely an open revolution surface instead of a polysurface, letting me access the surface trim command after quickly finding the BrepBrep intersection curves between the prongs and the single ring surface.
For that Boolean union step I'm down from 11 seconds to 4 seconds, but confusingly we added a second to the Boolean difference that follows:
It's fast since we are manually selecting junk instead of Rhino having to sort which is which, I imagine.
We still have a slow Boolean subtraction of the gems and holes from the finished ring body.
That's not simple so will remain slow and cannot be parallel processed since again there's a single main ring body being modified in each step, and nor are there simple pairs of split object to select from manually to discard junk.
…
ace Syntax." eCAADe 2013 18 (2013): 357.
http://www.sss9.or.kr/paperpdf/mmd/sss9_2013_ref048_p.pdf
The measure Entropy is newer. I hereby explain it (from my PhD dissertation):
Entropy values, as described in (Hillier & Hanson, The Social Logic of Space, 1984) and specified in (Turner A. , “Depthmap: A Program to Perform Visibility Graph Analysis, 2007), intuitively describe the difficulty of getting to other spaces from a certain space. In other words, the higher the entropy value, the more difficult it is to reach other spaces from that space and vice-versa. We compute the spatial entropy of the node as using the point depth set:
(11)
“The term is the maximum depth from vertex and is the frequency of point depth *d* from the vertex” (ibid). Technically, we compute it using the function below, which itself uses some outputs and by-products from previous calculations:
Algorithm 4: Entropy Computation
Given the graph (adjacency lists), Depths as List of List of integer, DepthMap as Dictionary of integer
Initialize Entropies as List(double)
For node as integer in range [0, |V|)
integer How_Many_of_D=0
double S_node=0
For depth as integer in range [1, Depths[node].Max()]
How_Many_of_D=DepthMap.Branch[(node,depth)].Count
double frequency= How_Many_of_D/|V|
S_node = S_node - frequency * Math.Log(frequency, 2)
Next
Entropies [node] = S_node
Next
…
ly 26-27-28-29 (digital fabrication)
The third edition of digitalMed Workshop is structured as a design laboratory. Participants will learn the challenging process of producing ideas, projects and research analysis that are to be developed through specific software and concepts that emerge through the use of mapping, parametric design and digital fabrication.
The workshop will take place in the city of Salerno (Italy) and it will last 11 days structured into 3 intensive weekends: July 13-14-15 (mapping); July 19-20-21-22 (parametric design); July 26-27-28-29 (digital fabrication).
Goals and Objectives:
We aim to make clear the theoretical and technical knowledge in the approach to parametric and generative design and digital fabrication. (From collection and data management, to the manner in which these inform the geometries, to the fabrication of prototypes.)
Participants will also have the opportunity to practice the new knowledge gained in the design laboratory through project work.
Project Theme:
"Urban Field" Identify, study and analyze the system of public spaces in the urban area of the city of Salerno.
Connection, mutation, generation and evolution are the themes to be followed in project work.
Brief Description of Topics:
- Mapping. Our reality, in all its forms, has studied through concepts of the theory of Complex Systems. The techniques that will be used to study events and places of reality, will work for the management, manipulation and visualization of data and information. These will form the basis for project management and driven geometry, conducted during the second phase of the workshop.
- Parametric Design. Introduction to Rhino* and Grasshopper. Specifically, we will explain the concepts with which to work with the software of parametric design and how they function. Through these tools, we will arrive at the definition of systems of mathematical and / or geometrical relationships that are able to generate and govern patterns, shapes and objects that will inform the final design.
- Digital Fabrication. In this phase, participants of the workshop are organized into working groups. Participants have access to materials and conceptual apparatus that will take them directly to the fabrication of the geometries of the project, with the use of software CAD / CAM interface and the use of machines for the digital fabrication.
The DigitalMed workshop is organized by Nomad AREA (Academy of Research & Training in topics of Contemporary Architecture), in collaboration with the City of Salerno, the Order of Architects Province of Salerno and the National Institute of Architecture In / Arch - Campania.
Interested parties may download the Notice of Competition at the address www.digitalmedworkshop.com and fill the pre-registration no later than July 10th 2012.
PRESS OFFICE
Dr. Francesca Luciano
328 61 20 830
fra_luciano@libero.it
For information or subscriptions:
e-mail: info@digitalmedworkshop.com - tel: 089 463126 - 3391542980 …
a nodi, permette di sfruttara le potenza della programmazione, senza necessariamente avere competenze avanzate.
Con Grasshopper potrete avere accesso ai segreti della modellazione generativa, un nuovo linguaggio progettuale che sta cambiando il mondo del design, a partire dalla gioielleria, fino ad arrivare all'architettura.
Durante il corso sarà possibile comprendere le caratteristiche di funzionamento del programma e applicarlo alla creazione di oggetti complessi che potranno essere stampati in 3D, oppure renderizzati. La durata è di 30 ore e alla fine del percorso verrà rilasciato il certificato McNeel.
Il Programma
Il corso spiega i concetti base di modellazione parametrica e generativa. Nello specifico:
Interfaccia e comandi
Parametri e componenti
Interopazione con Rhinoceros
Strumenti di parametrizzazione
Combinazione dati
Data tree
Creazioni di superfici attraverso algoritmi di paneling
Teoria degli attrattori
Gestione strumenti mesh
Creazione di Cluster
Durante il corso saranno proposte esercitazioni pratiche sul campo di utilizzo preferito dallo studente
Il docente
Antonino Marsala, è un formatore certificato McNeel con alle spalle oltre 11 anni di esperienza nel settore della modellazione 3D. Oltre ad occuparsi di formazione, collabora con aziende orafe e di architettura per la messa in pratica dei principi di modellazione generativa, applicandoli a casi reali.
FAQ
Quanto costa il corso?
Il prezzo del corso è di 500,00 € + IVA che potranno essere saldati in una soluzione unica. Nel caso di iscrizione di gruppo, potrà essere applicato uno sconto.
Cosa posso portare e cosa non devo portare all'evento?
Gli organizzatori forniranno computer con il software già installato. Nel caso vogliate portare il vostro computer, vi forniremo una versione trial da 90giorni di Rihnoceros e Grasshopper
Dove posso contattare l'organizzatore per qualsiasi domanda?
antonio@mandarinoblu.com
334 24 20 203
La mia registrazione o il mio biglietto è trasferibile?
Si, purchè venga comunicato il cambiamento entro 48 ore dalla partena del corso
…
mers considering extreme sports reject mainstream retailers and like to check out small stores rather of at chains plus malls. Several smaller retailers discuss trends in sports shoe sales. http://skateszone.com/
Though athletic shoes and sports stores and from doorways retailers have reported somewhat uptick in footwear sales due to the increase in extreme sports, the particular beneficiaries inside the trend are independent surf and skate niche stores.
Some West Coast surf and skate shops stated teenagers and even more youthful Generation Xers are not only rejecting traditional sports, but they're also shunning mainstream retailers and malls meant for smaller niche shops transporting hard-to-come-by brands.
Eddie Miyoshi, district manager at Atomic Garage, a 3-store chain situated in Gardena, Calif., stated the soaring recognition of skateboard footwear has boosted the retailer's total footwear business 20-thirty percent this year, rather of '95.
Skate footwear presently represent 80-90 % of Atomic Garage's shoe sales, while couple of years back, Dr. Martens and Timberland drove the retailer's footwear business.
Like many retailers, Miyoshi pointed to Airwalk since the trend's catalyst.
However, if Airwalk broadened its distribution to larger chains, which are frequently located in malls, only a few skate shoe customers adopted. Rather, many youthful males have switched for your skate shops for additional elusive brands like Etnies, Duffs, and Electricity Footwear by Circus. By refusing to market bigger retailers or sports stores, these brands are increasing their cachet among youthful consumers.
"Kids don't want stuff which have been within the shops,In . Miyoshi added.
Searching ahead, Miyoshi forecasted skate shoe sales will remain strong through spring '97 provided "the [hot] vendors don't auction other [non-particularly shop] retailers."
"Skaters and non-skaters are rebelling against mainstream retailers so on to surf and skate shops for many looks," echoed Mark Richards, co-online sources Val Surf, a 3-store chain situated in North Hollywood, Calif. Soaring sales of skate footwear have driven total footwear receipts up 25 percent this year rather of '95.
"The quantity of that increase might be connected while using exposure of maximum games? I am unsure. [Skate footwear] may also be actually the think about the moment,In . Richards acknowledged. And in relation to getting this right look, youthful customers can be very picky.
"Skateboard footwear is a huge category for people, but we're not able to own the brands, Etnies, Duffs, Electricity and Nice, simply because they won't sell us," stated Mark Anderson, buyer at Chick's Sports, a six-store chain in Covina, Calif. "We have people coming every single day requesting them." Consequently, skate footwear have consistently ongoing to obtain about 5 % of Chick's overall footwear business. http://skateszone.com/the-top-8-best-skateboards-for-beginners-reviews-2017/
Nonetheless, some outdoors, niche sports and sports retailers are noting the growing recognition and coverage of maximum sports will receive a modest impact on footwear sales. Trailrunning footwear and approach/outdoors crosstrainers will be the two groups benefiting the very best inside the recognition. Like the skate shoe business, some retailers realize that styling instead of function frequently drives sales of individuals footwear.
"At this time the merchandise is a lot more visual than function," stated Chet James, gm of Super Jock 'N Jill, Dallas, speaking about trailrunning footwear. Still, James noted the current hype over adventure sports helps draw more customer traffic. "The marketing campaigns and media help bring growing figures of people in, nonetheless they frequently occasions day an issue that increases results on their own account,Inch he conceded.
John Wilkinson, executive vp inside the 85-store chain Track 'N Trail, Eldorado Hillsides, Calif., stated the shop has "seen some activity in approach footwear," but he requested the amount of consumers depend in it commercially sport. And, instead of accelerating total footwear business, Wilkinson speculated elevated sales of approach footwear and trailrunners are gnawing away at traditional hiking shoe and boot volume.
But Dan Bazinet, president of Overland Exchanging, a 34-store chain situated in Westford, Mass., believes the company-new looks have breathed existence for the wilting hiking boot category. "[Approach-type footwear] don't represent the lion's participate the hiking market, nonetheless they have elevated the hiking business and provided us extra sales," Bazinet stated.
He designated Timberland's Treeline Series and Rockport's Leadville line as strong performers. Unsurprisingly, he noted the company-new looks are attractive to youthful consumer base than traditional hikers.
For that month of June, sales of men's hikers were up 49 percent at Overland, rather of June '95, while sales of women's hikers were up 17 % for that month. Bazinet also attributed elevated sales that shops walked inside the hiking business, departing that business for that specialists.
Some retailers draw a good example concerning the hiking boom of two yrs ago combined with the current extreme sport phenomenon. "Plenty of bigger chains will get a specific percent in the industry while [extreme] sports remain a fad because they are selling cost-point type gear," described Steven Carre, assistant hard goods buyer at Adventure 16, a six-store chain situated in Hillcrest.
"However individuals [true enthusiasts] will say `we need real gear' and may shown up at us. That will help us after a while. What Size Skateboard good for an 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 year old
…
stributes structural supports for a uniformly loaded domain using e.g. the internal energy of the loaded domain as fitness. Here the uniformly loaded domain is represented by the trimmed surface. My genomes are the support positions (green crosses), which are restricted to a set of predefined grid points. I’m currently using an (i,j)-coordinate indexing for these grid points (illustrated in the viewport just below) as opposed to a sequential , “one-dimensional” numbering (illustrated in the viewport further down).
(i,j)-indexing systemAltenative, sequential indexing system
The support positions are computed by two gene pools; one governing the i-index, Gene List {i}, and one governing the j-index, Gene List {j}, of each support. The value of slider 0 in Gene List {i} is paired with the value of slider 0 in Gene List {j} etc. and the amount of sliders corresponds to the amount of supports. The screen shot below depicts the slider constellation corresponding to the support distribution depicted above. Unfortunately the j-index represented in the sliders needs remapping as the number of j-indices vary for each i-index (horizontal row of grid points). With the current setup I have 12^6 x 9^6 = 1,6 x 10^12 different genomes. If I were to use the sequential, “one-dimensional” numbering, I would only use one gene pool with sliders ranging from 0 to 76 meaning that remapping could be avoided and thereby having only 76^6 = 1,9 x 10^11 different genomes.
So, my current genome setup causes a bunch of issues related to the Evolutionary Solver: Remapping Changing one of the j-index sliders, will not necessarily change the related support position but it will still facilitate another genome to be calculated by the solver. (This problem could be eliminated by using the sequential, “one-dimensional” numbering)
Switching slider values around If the values of e.g. slider 0 were to be switched around with the values of slider 5, this again would yield a new genome but an identical solution. (This problem cannot be eliminated by using the sequential, “one-dimensional” numbering)
Coincident support positions Two or more supports may be located in the same position. (This problem cannot be eliminated by using the sequential, “one-dimensional” numbering)
I find it impossible to imagine the fictive “fitness landscape” of this problem and not only because of the multidimensional genome characteristic but just as much because of these listed, intertwined peculiarities. I’ve tried running the Simulated Annealing Solver as well, but my experience is that the Evolutionary Solver yields better results. To my awareness, the solver uses some kind of topographical proximity searcher. This is why, I think that the solving process itself benefits more from analysing the (i,j)-index system, in which neighbouring grid points hold more uniform topographical information than the sequential, “one-dimensional” numbering, which might have big ID-numbering gaps between neighbours. Have I understood this correctly?
Cheers…