ed to do:
FOA_Bundle_Tower.pdf
The tower height is a variable
The degrees of symmetry in plan is variable from 2 to 10 (2 bundles up to 10 bundles; the actual project has 4 bundles made from 8 individual towers or tubes).
The overall radius or diameter of the circle on which each tower is located is a variable
The tower should match the overall topology of the Bundle Tower: each tube should alternate between touching its neighboring tube on the left and right twice.
The number of floors is a variable
Overall tower height: 500m- Floor to floor height: 4.5m (I recommend that you increase this to 10m while testing)- Each tube's plan roughly has an area of 1000m2
this is what i have got so far:
foa tower.ghx
I just need guidance because i am soo lost. thank you
…
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013
via MIDI controllers.
my idea is to link PureData to GH via UDP. why pure data? cause' i can relate data like GH to generate numeric relations (and link it to audio generation)
so far i got PD and Processing to talk, but i can't get to grasshopper.
i use this definitions to make pd and processing to talk http://ubaa.net/shared/processing/udp/ and this GHX to get the data to GH http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/attachment/download?id=2985220%3...
i got this data from this post but the GH definition doesn't work for me. i have tried LAN definitions and "the engine" as well but they both freeze, even if i send data thru processing or PD.
i have a lot of questions at this time
1.- why processing tells me that i am getting the data from diferent ports, while i'm using 6000?
2.- why in the UDP definition i get no data out, even if it should say something like "waiting fordata/port/etc.." that's defined in the C# capsule
3.- is there a direct way to get midi data (key and CC) to GH
i also tried to use firefly to get the data via COM port. i know you can do this trick in processing but i just don't know how.
well. if anyone could help me i would share the results here (since it's a magister, results shoud be very interesting)
UDP has allways been a unsolved issue on other posts. maybe we could work it out ;)
Thanks…
Added by jota aldunce at 8:43am on September 28, 2010
.!
Feel free to ignore them, or to remove this thread.
They are just a couple of thoughts:
1st idea: It would be great to right click on a slider and reset it to a "original" value (maybe just a click on a little icon next to the name, so it is even faster).This can be handy when using Galapagos, as all the sliders gets changed...and the fastest way I found so far to reset them is to close and open the GH file.But I bet as Galapagos is so new... well... maybe this is something you already thought about!
2nd idea: Having parametric sliders (with inputs).Imagine you want a slider to vary from x to y... now you have to type in the values. It would be good to set set x and y with inputs.
This is actually very useful using Galapagos, but quite useless in all the other cases...
Probably than the best way to do this is to add a feature in Galapagos to use domains as inputs... but I read somewhere that you are working on this already!
3rd idea: Change the value (or range) of multiple sliders.Imagine you want all the sliders you have to be =2... and imagine to have 20 sliders... if you select them and right click on one, it will only change that one. (not the selection). Would be good to edit a selection. (or maybe there is a way and I don't know it?)
----
Well, don't know if that will help somehow, but they are just thoughts! ;)
Thanks if you will consider them!!!
Compliments again for the incredible hard work on GH!
Cheers,Fil…