eaky things > thus I barely can see the point of having it (or maybe I must train the cats - in fact I'm doing exactly that these days [windows 7 - the older the better]).
Given the opportunity: happens that some top data retrieval gurus here and there are good friends (don't ask why). Well ... they are not that crazy with SSD since they claim that they are very prone to failures due to current fluctuations (unless you use some top dog UPS). Moral: stick to good old ("slow") stuff.…
d fly with a Porsche flat six).
2. Added a double (nested) Anemone thing (and the Mateusz version) and some comments.
3. Added a stupid "arm maker" cluster ... primitive/ugly/pointless - see one prototype attached about how to do it (you'll need a top feature driven CAD app for this - notice the Teflon low friction ring).
4. In order to "adapt" the cluster arm you need some "stretch" capability (orient, scale et all are the 1st step). Of course putting the cluster into the 2*loop is the art of pointless (Mateusz misinterpreted my bitter comments as regards the "slow" thing, I had absolutely no intension to recreate "live" the arm).
be the Force (the dark option) with you all.…
glass panel).
2. This actually means that the parts on duty they don't differ that much. Meaning that we can use an "average" size (and "local" topology) acting as the Jack for all trades.
3. Meaning that we can effectively solve the abstract topology with an abstract app the likes of GH and then place in properly defined coordinate systems all the real-life bits and nuts ... closely "emulating" a pro solution (that could "adjust" the parts as well).
4. This means that one particular C# needs more lines of code since as it is it defines cable axis on a per nod to node basis ... but in fact these are defined as the min segment between curves (circles to be exact).
5. Additionally the end part of each strut differs depending on how many pairs of stabilizing cables are used (either 2 or 1). Meaning some lines of code more for defining the proper coordinate systems for the instance definitions.
6. This is the reason that I've postponed mailing to you the 4 horsemen (because PRIOR finishing the whole you MUST define what parts to use: the classic bottom-top design approach).
But in order to receive the Salvation (aka: Apocalypse) you MUST answer correctly to a simple puzzle:
Provided that money is no object, pick your car:
1. Ferrari 245 (Less is more)
2. Lancia Stratos (Lethal).
3. Cobra 427 (Men only)
4. Ford GT40 (Mama mia)
5. Ariel Atom (Mental)
6. Aston Zagato GTB4 (Sweet Jesus)
7. Fulvia HF Fanalone (THE racer)
8. Lambo Miura (Enough said)
9. Lotus Elise (Just add lightness)
10. Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione (In red)…
th a graphic editor (GH) hosted in a CAD app that has primitive assembly/component capabilities and/or feature driven ops (Rhino). Did I've mentioned that Rhino is a surface modeler? (meaning the obvious).
3. Imagine a "seed" collection of assemblies related with various membrane components made in SW. Say: geometry (prior solid ops) and parameters (the feature driven part of the equation, in most of cases managed with some RDBMS). You should port these to GH (a variety of ways exist for that) and create the bare minimum of "solids" in GH as instance definitions. There's 2 main reasons to do that: (a) effectively communicating back on an assemply/component schema (via STEP) and ... (b) achieving manageable collections when in GH. These are critical for clash detection (when outlining some topology in GH, therefore NEVER work just with "curves") and "variation" control of some sort (up to a point). Of course for high class designs (where the devil hides in the details) this is NOT the best imaginable solution ... you'll need CATIA for such an integrated (all in one) procedure. On the other hand many could (wrongly) argue that CATIA is expensive (rather naive argument if a company has a certain turnover).
4. So, in general I would strongly suggest to use instance definitions of items in some sort of "intermediate state" of detail (an 100% undoable task without code) structured in such a way (classic assembly/component MCAD mentality blah, blah) that SW could take benefit of a possible modified "base topology" and proceed by finishing variations of the given assembly (feature driven stuff as usual).
5. Then export (STEP 214) back portions of the assemblies (and parameters used) to R/GH if and when this is required (for instance for BIM disciplines ... but Rhino is not a BIM app, nor it would ever be).
6. If you are familiar with code matters ... start thinking the whole puzzle that way, if not my advise is to find someone to design such a "procedure" (say an "app") using solely code, but this is not a task for the inexperienced by any means.
best, Peter…
basis).
2. Rhino does not have a proper object display capability (objects per layer per view basis and/or per "collections" per view).
3. TSplines does NOT have any on-the-fly coordinate system definition capability (making "edit" a pointless waste of time). A small example about what this means as regards view navigation matters: imagine "hoovering" along a myriad of 3d objects: if you choose/opt for it: the moment that you touch an element (that could define a vector): this instantly becomes the working plane Z axis (very common capability in top MCAD apps). Not the same as a SpaceNavigator controller mind (far from it).
If these 3 were available > rebuilding anything with TSplines could be a joy (and very fast: about 2 minutes for your mesh)
Get this as well - Load Rhino file first attached in my previous reply (just for fun: not for your case, but we could do an extra WOW MERO spaceframe out of this paranoid M mesh).
BTW: Exo W is "tricky"…
gt; most probably > adios Amigos.
3. WP Loop VS ... > see above
4. Daniel VS ... > see above.
There's other dedicated apps for handling huge amount of data (using very fast ball pivot algorithms for dealing with the gazillion of points).…
nd me to kill him but give him my regards anyway) is still around in BirdAir Italy ... talk with him.
3. Hope that you understand that designing the "details" means some decent MCAD app + FEA + this + that. "Fusing" this with some abstract graphic editor like GH ... is ... er ... impossible (in real-life, you know, he he ). Generative Components on the other hand may qualify but requires a lot of time in order to fully master it (approx 2-4 years).
4. FormFinder ... well ... that's utterly Academic but on the other hand ... (good luck).
http://www.formfinder.at/main/software/team/
5. http://tecno.upc.edu/cotens/software.htm
6. This is the second best (after the BirdAir internal stuff) but costs an arm and a leg
http://www.ndnsoftware.com/
7. This is a !%$!%$ in the !%$%!$:
http://www.sofistik.com/no_cache/loesungen/fem/leichte-tragwerke/
My realistic (low cost) advise:
use K1/2 (especially if you are after "parametric" exploitation(s)) ... and then diversify tasks: stuff for the structural department, stuff for whom claims that he can(?) design the "details" ... whilst be in a constant contact with the membrane provider (and in fact: the contractor for doing the real thing as well)
…
Get plenty of RAM. Windows 32-bit can assign 2MB of Ram per process, so if you have lots of RAM, you can run Rhino+Grasshopper in memory all the way. I'd say get at least 4GB, and preferably 8GB. If you have a 64-bit machine, then it pays off to go even higher than that.
2) Get fast RAM. Memory access is the main bottleneck in many applications, so the faster the RAM the faster most apps will work.
3) Get a fast processor, rather than lots of slow processors. Only a few apps out there can truly use Multi-Threading (Rhino and Grasshopper cannot). These days, CPU manufacturers try and dress up multi-core CPUs as the next best thing. It is not. It is a lie. Until software can truly run on multiple cores there is no benefit to this. If rendering is a big part of your job, then it does pay off to have a multi-core machine though.
4) Get a good graphics card. I've always preferred NVidia over ATI, but there are many good ATI cards as well. You can go for a gaming card (they're cheaper), but note that these are optimised for drawing triangles. If you get a professional card, it will draw lines and curves much faster.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Robert McNeel & Associates…
on) ... the only way to do something meaningful/realistic is to follow Bentley System's way: they had 3 rendering engines (all highly problematic and archaic), a bunch of highly paid "gurus" to "develop" the dead fish and an export to Maxwell capability as well (Maxwell is very slow and has no chance VS Nexus, see below). PS: "Gurus" had no idea about Quest3D and the likes.
At the time, I was near to some permanent ban (he he) from all Bentley Forums due to my acid writings about how stupid these methods were. In fact I openly proposed to Bentley (to Ray Bentley to be exact) to fire all "gurus" involved ... and follow the outsource path.
Finally Ray (he's very smart) did the right thing: after an agreement with Luxology ... now Microstation (the core product) uses the Nexus engine (as found in Modo). This means that the Nexus is fully integrated across the whole vertical suite of BIM AEC Bentley apps the likes of AECOSim (that includes Generative Components as well).
And as everyone knows THIS is the real McCoy (US movie industry is behind that thing).
Additionally Modo has the best GUI known to mankind (US movie ... blah blah) and astonishingly innovative thinking (US movie ... blah blah).
…