onstrates the following:
1. The definition's functionality employing HumanUI for the custom user interface.
2. Color based segmentation in manual and auto modes.
3. The evaluation of the definition's ability to handle different point cloud data sets.
This definition performs color based segmentation in two modes.
A manual mode, that implements the Delta-E CIE 2000 color difference formula, for targeted feature detection. An auto mode, that employs a simple RGB Color Range algorithm for quicker preliminary results.
RGB to XYZ to CIELab conversion and Delta-E scripts were based on Colormine's project code from github. Results have been compared and verified with the results of http://colormine.org/color-converter and http://colormine.org/delta-e-calculator/Cie2000.
Each stored class is charted and can be accessed through the UI, as shown at 2:30, where Delta-E CIE 2000, in CieLab color space, output results were found to be in perceptive conformity with human eyes, far superior to the preliminary RGB implementation.
Initial definition versions could process highly subsampled clouds in acceptable timings. Further research showed that employing the multithread processing of Volvox components, bundling the Delta E formula with the RGB to CIE lab color conversion script, per color segmentation calculations for a one million points point cloud would go down from 23 (c# script component) and 8 (vb script component) seconds to approx. 1 second (volvox script cloud component), thus allowing the segmentation of less subsampled point clouds.
I would like to thank Heumann A. and Zwierzycki M. who provided direct support with HumanUI and Volvox. Also Grasshopper3d forum users Maher S. and Segeren P., who contributed with Rhino viewport manipulation scripts.
More on Volvox:
http://papers.cumincad.org/cgi-bin/works/Show?_id=ecaade2016_171&sort=DEFAULT&search=ecaade%20volvox&hits=2629
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/volvox
http://duraark.eu/
HumanUI:
http://www.food4rhino.com/app/human-ui?page=1&ufh=&etx=
ColorMine:
https://github.com/THEjoezack/ColorMine…
this, you'll have no horizontal force at the roller, but you will have it at the pinned support. If you wouldn't, then the structure will be displaced.
Usually, in 2 dimensional structures, if you want to know if an articulated structure is isostatic (as opposed to hyperstatic, which is what you have right now) is to use the following formula:
b+c-2·n=0;
b being the number of bars, c the number of constraints you have and n the number of nodes. In your case: b=19, c=3 (displacements constrained in X, Z at your pinned support and only constrained in Z at your roller support) and n=11, so: 19+3-2·11=0.
I recommend you to download the app SW Truss, as it's very useful to check your results instantly.…
exploran los principios básicos de Grasshopper en Rhino 5 para desarrollar algoritmos de superficies responsivas a datos generados por dispositivos y aplicaciones como: iPhone/iPad/iPod, Android, GPS, Kinect, etc.
Es necesario traer tu Laptop con Rhino y Grasshopper instalados.
Rhino: http://download.rhino3d.com/rhino/4.0/ev aluation/download/
Grasshopper: http://download.rhino3d.com/Grasshopper/ 1.0/wip/download/
Cupo Limitado
info@dimensiontallerdigital.com
$4,000.00…
r visual programming tools in the games world. MS's Kodu, looks interesting. Kismet and Visual3d look even more interesting..... mainly because they are more 'interactive' or 'reactive', rather than DAG-based.
Seems like the evolution path for GH-similar apps is:
1. base 3d or CAD app based on C/C++ code.
2. Add scripting language interface
3. Add some kind of visual interface
4. Add graph sorting / propagation engine
5. Re-jig base 3d or CADD app to make managed/interpreted scripts run faster, multi-threaded.
6. Add dynamic typed language, DLR stuff
6. ....
6. Add constraints solver...?
7. Rebuild CAD display engine to be procedural at the GPU level?
Seems like there are available tools for converting scripts into some kind of flowchart. There are even visual debuggers. MS even has something called the 'Debugger Canvas'. Spreadsheet constraints.
Seems like the time is ripe for lots of new apps like GH.
…
dro). The quality of the driver is also critical: hard to imagine NVidia working overnight to fix "some" driver bugs due to requests from gamers. Game cards are notoriously bad in dual monitor configurations.
3. A zillion of cores (triumph of marketing VS common sense) divided by the given clock rate ... gives you just ONE poor old core (Rhino/gh are single-threaded apps) that tries to do the job.
4. Single Xeon E5 2xxx V3 (the higher the clock the LESS the cores = better) would be my recommendation. ECC fast memory is also a must.
PS: Find a friend who operates a "loaded" H/P Z840 and test your defs.
…
ay to make some real-life proper nodes for that kind of T truss (we use machined balls solely for MERO KK type of normal trusses).
3. I'll post here soon a modular demo system suitable for this case (real-life for AEC purposes - NOT for decorative/artistic stuff, I don't care about that since I'm an engineer). This would include a policy for the X struts that require a variable linkage (the X angle). and in the same time a multi cable tensioner "bracket".
4. "Basic" coding next week for T trusses ? Er ... well ... are you kidding me right? I mean that ... hmm ...
5. C# things (about 2+K) around me are classified into 2 "groups": things that are weapons in the right hands and others that serve as demos/start points for mostly abstract cases. The former are internal the latter for public use. I'll remove some sensitive lines from a T truss C# maker and I'll post it here as a "guideline" ... for ...hmm... 4.
All in all:
Provided that you have system(s) on hand (see 3) that work 100% OK in an ideal world you'll need:
A. Something that does the general topology AND (especially) clash detection. Maybe Kangaroo as well as a "first pass" with regard rigidity of the structure in case that you don't adopt a classic T "configuration" (there are many > Google tensegrity).
B. Connectivity trees that relate nodes/edges and maybe faces (say for roofing panels/curtain walls etc etc). Without them is impossible to assemble the T thingy.
C: Something that places real-life "parts" as instance definitions and/or (optional) a "tracking variants history" ability.
D. A bullet proof way to EXPORT things (on an assembly/component schema, say: STEP214 - see C) into a proper BIM app (the likes of AECOSim/Revit) and/or into a MCAD app (the likes of CATIA/NX).
E. FEA/FIM in order to validate the structural ability of the components and the T truss itself.
F. Roofing/cladding/envelope components.
G. "Interactive" cost estimation(s) - T trusses are hideously expensive at least versus "classic" trusses (exactly like a planar glazing system that retails 3++ times more than a humble semi-structural one)…
in App store.
2. Modelo now supports VR! check out this video:
3. We've added a specular option in the rendering settings. So now you can have your design rendered a little bit shinny-er.
4. There is also a "filters" option in this panel, with which you can get some interesting image post processing effects. We are expanding this filter library, if you have any suggestions, please let us know.
5. This one is very important and has been requested by our customers for a long time. Now when you upload a model, you can grab the reviews(3d comments, screenshots,sketches) from your previously uploaded model! This works really conveniently if you use Modelo for your design review/presentation, cause you don't have to recreate the same 3d anchor views every time you made some changes to your design.
6. Also, our developer API is almost ready, which means if anyone is interested in developing a grasshopper plugin that works with Modelo, they can!
There are some many other updates and bug fixes happened. I don't want to list all of them here. Definitely stay subscribed with our newsletter. Modelo is thrived to grow into a more comprehensive platform! If you have any good ideas about our platform, please do not hesitate to let me know!
Here is our Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCufBShhLtUQepsit9ilI-AA
Cheers
Qi…
Added by Suqi to Modelo at 1:24pm on October 18, 2016
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).…
as the design table? I think this could be 'drawn' and constrained in Inventor in a lot less time. I know the GH model would have a lot of flexibility, but in this case, what can you do with it that wasn't provided by an Inventor model?
Only the 27 lines mentioned were modeled in Rhino, the rest is modeled with GH.
The 5 hrs involved thinking about the approach, defining vertical lines, tilts, elevations, pitch of the roof, intersections.
Once I had decided what my approach would be, and tested the logic with those first lines, points and data path arrangements, it only took one more hour to get to this:
Which is actually quite fast, compared to MCAD workflows.
If you already have components (columns, beams, etc.) modeled and ready to drop into a project, of course it is lightning fast to model simple projects like this example.
I am not as much interested in those situations, because improving efficiency is straightforward and obvious.
I'm more interested in situations where there are no pre-defined families of objects, in which case you need to start from scratch.
The GH model I'm showing is modeled from scratch, except for the 27 lines in Rhino.
Here's one obvious advantage to modeling with GH, once the definition is set-up, it's virtually effortless to change inputs and alter the overall design. Here's an example, lets say we wanted to extend the roof 3 more units, curling away from the original direction.
Plan view before:
And after:
An MCAD app will also allow you to do this, as long as the location of additional elements follows the existing geometric method of definition. What happens if you want completely change the way you locate columns, roof slope, intersection points?
In MCAD, you'll need to re-model the underlying geometry, which will take the same effort as the first round. In GH, this process is not only much faster, it's open to algorithmic approaches, galapagos, etc. and it just takes some simple re-wiring to have all down-stream elements associate themselves to this new geoemtric definition.
For instance, here's the same definition applied to two curves, which are divided in GH, the resulting points are used as a starting point for lines directed at normal from curves.
This is not so easy to do in MCAD.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 7:55pm on February 24, 2011