nda like a T-Rex).
BTW: The real thing:
(a) accepts different top-bottom nurbs controlled by a variety of ways including attractors etc etc.This is the reason that several components are not "minimized" (this def is a "bit" garrulous I confess, he he).
(b) has clash detection capabilities in order to avoid embarrassing moments when talking with these Germans.
(c) has images of nice looking girls (for inspiration purposes).
(d) has images of MERO cases.
(e) uses about 50% less components.
(f) exports (EXCEL) drilling axis for those Germans.
...
(z) can manage cladding support systems/corrugated sheets/etc without them... this def is 100% academic (see the unfortunate Roissy 2F and a myriad similar cases). Given the opportunity use Foamglas (1 "s") and avoid a myriad of issues.
BTW: this is a classic case about why we desperately need a decent block management at bake time: assume that you want to export something to your favorite AEC app (AECOSim, Revit, Allplan blah blah). By what means can you do it? (other than exporting a myriad of "individual/stand alone" balls/cones/tubes etc etc).
best, Peter
…
y, he he) on that market segment (trusses and the likes) ... well ... you can't do anything in real-life without code. Too many reasons to list them here (indicative: connectivity Trees, member clash detection, instance definitions, managing solution variations talking to MCAD apps that do the parts in real-life ... blah, blah). If this is just an abstract exercise ... forget all the above.
3. Using a // (to the ground) "inner" surface (the 2 edges, that is) is tricky because without code you can't be sure where the whole procedure failed (a red component means nothing).
4. The weird big "component" provides ways to do things with surfaces (most notably: rebuild) that are not available as native components. Rebuild is critical when dividing surfaces
have fun, best, Lord of Darkness…
s for some solution "as it is" no matter the cost? (that's an extra stupid approach, very old fashioned). Do you use EvoluteTools Pro and/or Kangaroo for "optimization" ?
2. What is the FEA/FIM stuff in use? Do you expect "from/back" interactions? (If this is not doable ... increase this or that etc etc).
3. Do you validate real-life components with FEA/FIM? By what means you design these components? - present and/or future (inside Rhino?). This makes things "interesting" in a variety of ways (we need to extensively talk about that - Skype). The problem is that Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modeling app and thus ... a "certain" bottleneck arrives in no time: In the CATIA world you design ("MANUALLY") a parametric history driven component that "complies" to his parent "directives" (say: the Topology) and/or "imposes" his rules to his parent. This is what we call top<>bottom design approach (would become a standard across the AEC industry pretty soon: in around 123 years give or take some). This is far and beyond from what Rhino can do - but we DO make real-life things don't we?
4. Are all these things under a BIM umbrella ? What BIM? What type of details (blue prints) you deliver? (or you just make the thing?).
5. By what means cost is restricting/encouraging the solution? By what means you get feedback from component(s) cost that is outsourced? (i.e. outside your company). Do you monitor all things via some RDBMS? (that's Data Base).
6. What are the long term plans for dealing with such solutions? Using what apps (even in theory for the moment).…
simple, there are many symetries in 3 main planes. So I used arcs rotated 45° from the main planes and I generate a pentagon which was mirrored and rotated many times.
At the end there are 24 pentagons and 8 hexagons so 32 faces, 54 points/vertex and 84 edges.
It could generate some others tessalation styles
…
r this or that etc etc).
3. I would strongly advise to use some decent feature/dimension driven CAD app in order to create families of concrete deck/beam(s) profiles "manually" (the good old way PLUS recording history and using parameters for the steps taken). Find a friend who knows, say, AECOSim and ask for a small demo on that matter (specifically ask what DDD is [Dimension Driven Design]). Then you can have these in Rhino/GH, define some topology, do the "solid" and if 1M of decks/beams are required rather use instance definitions and plane to plane transformations (that's what the Orient component does) instead of creating 1M clone objects.…
discussions during this period.
The major topics discussed for GH2 during this period will be:
Documentation/Help
GHA/Cluster/VB/C# App-Store
Localization (i.e. languages other than English)
Constraint Engine implementation
Improved VB/C#/Python development tools
Multi-threading the solver
Building a Mac version
If you feel something important was left out, please let us know here. Note that incremental improvements and bug-fixes are not worth discussion as we'll try and get around to them no matter what. Topics on this list have to fit the "Are we going to try and do X?" format.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 4:07am on October 11, 2013
n splitting curves and then join them to create the region; but I'am looking for a more straightforward solutions. 3- I know some plugins like clipper could do this, but I'm looking for more flexible solutions.
4- I tried Brep[] CreatePlanarBreps(IEnumerable<Curve>) in ghpython, but it doesn't work.
…
precise) that unfortunately has more than one staff. This means that I pay the bills (unfortunate to the max). Practice is vertical meaning no Structural/HVAC etc services.
2. AEC Projects are made by teams. Period.
3. Teams are organized with some sort of hierarchy. Period.
4. On each team there's always one leader. Teams can being sampled in group teams - call them clusters (kinda like a List of List of ...)
5. All cluster leaders report to the supreme human being (yours truly). Leader heads are always on my disposal (it's fun to decapitate someone: I do this every Monday).
6. AEC projects are made with 1% idea(s) and 99% of what we call "sludge" (this is not my job: I'm the One , he he).
7. You can't steer any boat if you don't know each @@$#@ nut and bold. In the past there was a naive approach on that matter (ruined automotive companies, potato chip makers, software vendors, political systems, secret service agencies ... etc etc).
8. Efficiency is above all (even above tax-free cash).
9, You can't do ANY AEC real-life thing with what GH has to offer (nor Rhino is an AEC BIM app - it would never be). You simply use GH as a supplement to Generative Components (and/or as stand alone because it's good fun). There's nothing that GH does (I'm speaking solely for AEC as always) that can't being done with Generative Components.
10. I've done so fat 257 projects (a "bit" bigger than a house, he he). Let's say about 51427 drawings (master, master details, details) and 78956 lines of text (specs, cost estimations, space schedules, supplier lists, contracts, cats and 1 dog).
If you combine all the above you'll have the answer (i.e. why I use solely - if possible - code and not GH components). If you can't combine them I'm sorry.
PS: C# is the absolute standard (never judge a language as a "stand-alone" thingy).
best, Peter (Prince of Cynics)
…
file. A TSpline made thing in fact.
2. This atroci ... er ... hmm ... I mean unspeakable beauty uses an exo-skeletal load bearing structure hence is THAT big (BTW: Apparently nobody knows what thermal bridge is nor thermal expansion nor vapor condensation ... but these are "minor" details these holly blob days, he he).
3. 2 means that some nodes of that "grid" MUST "meet" floors in order to support them and (hopefully) withstand some seismic forces. BTW: A Richter scale 9 (for an hour) is all what this building actually needs (that's acid "humor").
4. The "smarter" way to do this is to spread "some" (i.e a lot) random points (Note: David's algo yields "evenly-spaced-points" within the limits of the possible) on the guide blob (a polysurface in fact).
5. Then ... you need some algo that tests proximity AND "adjusts" the Z in order to have some node points "co-planar" (Z) with the floors.
6. Then you triangulate all that stuff (the points, that is) using some decent Ball Pivot Algorithm (NOT Delauney) and you get a triangulated mesh that "engulfs" the guide blob. If you want some quads (as shown) this is also possible.
7. So you have edges ... i.e poly lines (per mesh face) and if you offset them ... you have "drilling" profiles that you must use against a second guide "thickened" blob for creating a continuously smooth exo-skeletal LBS (as shown). Of course Rhino (being a surface modeller) could require years to do this solid difference opp (or an eternity).
8. Rounding the "lips" of that LBS Brep is out of question with Rhino or GH (but it can been done very easily using other apps). Then you must "split" the Brep (in modules? in nodes + "rodes"? you tell me) in order to make it in real-life (what about forgetting all that?, he he).
9. Then, there's the glazing thingy that is made via quads meaning planarity. This is achievable with Kangaroo2 but is a bit tricky.
Moral: WHAT a gigantic pile of worms is this thread of yours...
more soon.
…