greatly appreciate it!!
You can write the number of the question and write your answer next to it, example:
1) a
2) c
3) a) Washington University in St. Louis
4) 2 weeks (1week+1week shipping)
5) 130
6) b
7) b
The survey questions are as follows:
1)
Did you 3D print before?
5)
How much did it cost (in dollars)?
a.
Yes, for a school project
a.
Between 20 & 50
b.
Yes, for a personal project
b.
Between 50 & 80
c.
Between 80 & 120
2)
Print size
d.
Please specify if otherwise: _____ dollars
a.
Between 2 & 6 cubic inches
b.
Between 6 & 12 cubic inches
6)
Do you think the price was expensive?
c.
Between 12 & 20 cubic inches
a.
Not at all
d.
Please specify if otherwise: ____cubic inches
b.
A little bit expensive
c.
Very expensive
3)
Where did you print your object?
a.
School
7)
Were you satisfied with the printed object?
b.
Outside school: _________________
a.
Yes, it was a great print without problems
b.
Not bad, some issues
4)
How long did it take to print?
c.
I was not satisfied, very bad quality
a.
___ days
b.
___ weeks
Thank you very much to all!!
PS: If you did many 3D prints, you can post multiple answers.
Wassef…
often, however, the term is read in its narrowest sense- the aura that Walter Benjamin mourned the loss of in his famous essay Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction, now 75 years old. Rather than taking up the terms of that debate, asking whether or not art today has lost its aura, this collection aims to reclaim a broader understanding of aura in contemporary practices today.
In popular culture, aura is generally defined as a symptom of altered visual or sensual states. Reflecting this, the current exhibition includes works that produce visceral affect-based responses. These works operate through material richness, surface tactility, striking geometry, animate form, and light. Also included are works that encompass an inventive reading of aura. In this context, the exhibition models creative studio practice as a general force that extends beyond boundaries and containers- the aura here is not so much a property of an object that can be sensed, but rather a conceptual ambition to start with the everyday and then expand beyond it, producing new structures, symbols, or social interactions.
Other works look at an interior aura- they focus on individual subjects who are lost in an environment, engrossed in their own world. Through narrative, these works look at the psychological potential of aura to produce new experiences of reality. Linking the works is the "business of art- the buying and selling of designed objects located within a market". As much as art relies on creating "otherness", the art market is ultimately about the desire of the intangible, the aura of the work. The art business provides a stage for aura. The exhibition is a testimony to a multitude of perspectives, showing that the Business of Aura remains as intangible yet present today as it was seventy-five years ago.
Artists & architecturally trained designers at Elga Wimmer Gallery include - Helen Brough, Elizabeth Cooper, Cmmnwlth (Zoe Coombes & David Boira)-in collaboration with Timothy Saccenti, Kelsey Harrington, Jon Meyer, Steve Orlando, Devin Powers, Snarkitecture, SOFTlab, Studio Mode, and yo_cy (Christine Yogiaman & Ken Tracy).
Elga Wimmer Gallery
526 West 26th St. NYC #310
August 12 - September 18, 2010
Opening reception Thursday August 12 6:00-8:00pm
Summer hours - Tuesday - Friday 12-6pm
Hours after Labor Day Tuesday - Saturday 12-6pm…
GIC PATTERNS affronta l’impiego di strategie parametriche all’interno del processo progettuale, approfondendo l’utilizzo di Grasshopper in sinergia con plug-in, software di analisi ambientale e simulazione fisica. Obiettivo fondamentale è la generazione della forma come risultato di tecniche di form-finding e di input ambientali (solari, termici e acustici). Verranno acquisiti nuovi strumenti operativi e di simulazione al fine di costruire modelli parametrici ottimizzati in grado di adattarsi a diverse condizioni di contesto.
MORE INFO
…
eñadores, y creativos interesados en el aprendizaje de metodos avanzados de generación y racionalización de geometría compleja, y su implementación en distintas etapas del proceso de diseño.
Se abordaran los conceptos básicos para hacer frente a diversas problemas de diseño a través de la implementación de una serie de plataformas computacionales con el objetivo de construir un flujo de trabajo que permita optimizar proyectos de diversa escala y explorar esquemas geometricos complejos de manera rápida y eficiente.A lo largo del 6 dias trabajaremos con la plataforma de Modelado 3d Rhinoceros, el entorno de programación visual de Grasshopper y el motor de Renderizado de Vray.Estudiantes: $4,500.00Profesionistas: $5,500.00info+inscripciones:workshop@complexgeometry.com[044] 33 3956 9209[044] 33 1410 8975[044] 81 1916 8657
…
to carry out without them. We will go through these plugins learning how they work, main features and advantages playing with practical exercises.
We will highlight key concepts in advanced design, architecture and engineering: topology, form-finding, structural optimization, fractals, loops, genetic and repetitive algorithms...
Also, we will see how to capture nice views and designs from your scripting, with a correct export option, animations...
This course is On-line live sessions (18hours), using our platform online.controlmad.com
STRUCTURE:
- Interactive flexible geometry
- Generative design
- Reaction diffusion
- Geometry from DNA parameters
- Generative path visualization
- Growth simulation by sub-D
- Generating and genetic algorithms
- Visualization techniques
Main plug-ins shown:
> Kangaroo: The most famous and downloaded app for Grasshopper (it is built in the current Grasshopper for Rhino 6). It is a live physics engine interactive simulation, optimization and form-finding directly within Grasshopper
> Galapagos: available in the current Grasshopper build, it is a platform for the application of Evolutionary Algorithms to be used on a wide variety of problems by non-programmers
> Biomorpher: Interactive Evolutionary Algorithms (IEAs) helping designers to explore the wide combinatorial space of parametric models without always knowing where you are headed.
> Anemone: works using repetitive algorithms to create loops or sequencial structures like those ones seen in fractals.
Dates: July 10,11,17 and 18 (total 4 days)
Registration deadline: Monday, July 5th
Timetable: Saturday and Sunday 9,30 - 2pm (Madrid Time Zone CEST)…
Added by Diego Cuevas at 3:40am on September 11, 2018
ction only generic double glazing 72 (first in my list) and two others in opposition to the 8 different which are in the Geko mat component. If i select in Geko lets say type of object 6 (window) and no matter which material of object I choose it always selects the generic double glazing 72. I guess that makes sense that Ecotect switches its material object to 0 in the list because the lists are not corresponding and the material Geko calls does not exist in Ecotect? What puzzles me more is the fact if I change a given material property within Ecotect in a list where both mat lists (Ecotect & Geko) are corresponding after switching on Geko my changes of the material properties within Ecotect are gone and set back to its original values. Any idea?
For the other issue:
We would like to create new materials. Here we would like to experiment with fabric materials. I'm currently trying to figure out how the given material values of the fabric manufacturer (Ts, Rs, As, Tv, SHGC, Colour) to be translated into Ecotect material properties.
But anyway, what would be better? Defining a set of new materials within Ecotect and being able to assign them from Geko or being able to change material properties within Geko and transfer them to Ecotect for incident solar radiation and DF tests?
The first option if possible could give users the freedom to have a different material library then that one in Geko. Then the user only has to know how to asign which object type number and material number to get the right ecotect material. It would be also more easy to connect one slider to galapagos, meaning object type could stay constant but only switching through different materials which could be easily be found back since those correspond with the manufactures data (if properly done).
The second option would create more freedom I guess but one would have to connect several sliders to galapagos switching the material properties themselves which means one would end up with new (utopian) materials rather than existing materials which are on the market.
If you have any suggestions we would be happy to hear them. Thanks a lot.
best,
Florian
…
lic Sub A()
Dim num As Integer = 6
B(num)
Print(num)
Print(value) <------- problem!
End Sub
Public Sub B(ByVal data As Integer)
Dim value As Double = (data * data) / 3.0
...
End Sub
From inside Sub A you cannot 'see' any variables declared inside Sub B. In fact it would be impossible to do so. Consider this; If you're currently inside A, then it means that B is not running (unless B is on another thread, but let's not get into that can'o'worms). If B is not running then it has no data assigned to any of its variables, because .NET automatically cleans up after itself.
Also, what's to stop you from having a variable called data in more than one Sub? Then how would VB know which data you meant?
If you want to print values of variables, then you either have to print them from within the same Sub:
Public Sub B(ByVal data As Integer)
Dim value As Double = (data * data) / 3.0
Print(value)
...
End Sub
Or you have to share data between Subs:
Public Sub B(ByRef data As Integer)
data = (data * data) / 3.0
...
End Sub
Since data is now passed by reference (ByRef), both Sub A and Sub B have access to the very same variable.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
. Now i can duild the angle (i check angle with a vec cross prod). I sort the angles and the node index
now i can pass the point as ventrices to a polyline component.
and at the end the polyline in green
Example of a bad figure
Why bad?
Because i can order the points in the marked area. The angle method is not working enymore.
Point 8 and 9 are ok. Point 6 comes now before the 9.
Point 14 is ok. But point 15 comes before. And so on...
I have no idea how to solve this…
ays be a bit, well, crinkly, so to speak (which is often something people want to avoid, but in this case it sounds like it is the desired result).
Also, they can indeed be created using Kangaroo, by simply setting a length goal for every edge:
(This was possible in the old Kangaroo, but such hard constraints work much better with the new solver in version 2)
Such meshes are sometimes referred to as Lobel frames after the French architect Alain Lobel.
I think some of the confusion arises because there have been numerous conversations on this forum where people were asking how to create a triangular mesh with precisely equal edge lengths on a given doubly curved surface, which also in some sense approximates smoothness, and this is generally impossible.
Of course no non-flat triangular mesh with a finite number of faces is ever actually truly smooth, since the individual faces are flat, while the curvature is concentrated at the vertices instead of distributed across the surface. However, by allowing slight variation in the edge lengths these kinks can be made small, and they get smaller as the mesh is refined (as is done for subdivision surfaces), approaching smoothness in the limit.
This isn't possible while keeping edge lengths equal, but interestingly Lobel frames can in some cases approximate slightly doubly curved surfaces, it's just that they have to take on a sort of up-and-down folding pattern between adjacent faces, like origami, instead of the faces lying tangent to the smooth surface like subdivision meshes do.
Also, such equilateral meshes inevitably form spikes at the extraordinary vertices (those surrounded by some number other than 6 faces), and unless the surface you are approximating is close to developable you usually need some extraordinary vertices.
Bearing in mind all these limitations, I still think equilateral meshes have some interesting possibilities and are relatively under-explored digitally, due to a former lack of tools for working with them.
They are also closely related to an interesting class of hexagonal beam structures, as described here:
http://www.geometrie.tuwien.ac.at/pottmann/2014/honeycomb/index.html
…
for each object, with one single run, with each object surrounded by the same context geometries (if you check the image I attached the two dark grey boxes are the test geometries and the wirework boxes are the context).
Just recently I understood that it doesn't work (I thought anymore) like this but that if you input more than one test object in the geometry input each one acts as context for the others. This makes things longer because it means that if I have to test say 100 variations of the same object I have to connect and disconnect the geometries 100 times. In the way I remember it was before I had just to input the 100 objects in the geometry input and with one single run get the results in different branches.
Chris says it always worked like this (that each test geometry acts as context for the others), so it means I misunderstood or more likely I remember wrong. So to run multiple studies at the same time he suggests to input multiple geometries and graft the input. I tried but the result is shown in the previous post, the output is quite complicated to manage. You can see that for two test objects with 6 sides each I get one single list with six branches.
Now is not important if it was always like that or was not, but I was suggesting that could be useful that it would work like I remember :) if it is possible. When you input multiple test obejcts in the geometry input they ignore each other so you can run easily multiple studies, one for each object, at the same time. If you want to run one single study on two objects at the same time then you input also these objects in the context input so they shadow each other.
Let me know if this time was more clear. Thank you.
Francesco…