a partire dall’ap- proccio algoritmico-digitale per l’architettura, il paesaggio, la città, il prodotto, che sviluppa processi di progettazione in modo simile e vicino alle forme naturali ed ecologiche. La progettazione parametrica permette di avvicinarsi al progetto ar- chitettonico, paesaggistico, al design di prodotto, con elementi che conferiscono al processo e al prodotto finali armonia, fluidità, dinamismo, vicini ai parametri della natura, dunque molto più ecologici. L’uso della modellazione parametrica-digitale è diventato uno strumento essenziale nella maggioranza dei progetti orientati ad una pratica in cui le risposte progettuali, le invenzioni digitali e le loro implicazioni sono considerate ad un alto livello e prossime alle forme organico/naturali- ecologi- che. Per fare alcuni esempi, Zaha Hadid architects, KPF, Foster, HOK, aeDas e arup, Foa, Plasma e altri ancora sono studi internazionali di progettazione in cui l’uso della modellazione parametrica è diventata essenziale e rende riconoscibile il loro lavoro.
quota di iscrizione
Comprensiva della versione valutativa di Rhinoceros + Grasshopper e di buffet per il giorno 31 maggio _ 100 euro
note
scadenza iscrizioni: 25 maggio 2012 | ore 12.00
Durante il workshop verranno presentate esperienze di architetti internazionali che lavorano con il design parametrico. I partecipanti dovranno essere muniti del proprio computer portatile. Non è necessario possedere conoscenze di Rhinoceros o programmazione.
per informazioni e programma completo:
www.greentrendesign.it…
or of the rectangle
Here is a sketch.
I found also into rhinoscript help some script however I don't see how to manage to create such a component for a use into grasshopper.
Could you possibly help me ?
Thank you.
Marc
GetRectangle
Pauses for user input of a rectangle.
Syntax
Rhino.GetRectangle ([intMode [, arrPoint [, strPrompt1 [, strPrompt2 [, strPrompt3]]]]])
Parameters
intMode
Optional. Number. The rectangle selection mode. If not specified, all modes (0) are available. The rectangle selection modes are as follows:
Value
Description
0
All modes.
1
Corner. A rectangle is created by picking two corner points.
2
3-Point. A rectangle is created by picking three points
3
Vertical. A vertical rectangle is created by picking three points.
4
Center. A rectangle is created by picking a center point and a corner point.
arrPoint
Optional. Array. A 3-D base point.
strPrompt1
Optional. String. The first prompt or message.
strPrompt2
Optional. String. The second prompt or message.
strPrompt3
Optional. String. The third prompt or message. The third prompt used only with 3Point and Vertical modes.
Returns
Array
An array of four 3-D points that define the corners of the rectangle if successful. Points are returned in counter-clockwise order. See the image below for details.
Null
If not successful, or on error.
Example
Dim arrRect
arrRect = Rhino.GetRectangle
If IsArray(arrRect) Then
Rhino.AddTextDot "0", arrRect(0)
Rhino.AddTextDot "1", arrRect(1)
Rhino.AddTextDot "2", arrRect(2)
Rhino.AddTextDot "3", arrRect(3)…
he concept, moving on to decision making and continuing with digital and generative design tools TO GET THE BEST SOLUTION for each problem.
WHY? The world is complex and ever-changing and we need to be able to handle the volume of information we receive and, of course, to find and choose the best solution. Therefore, we direct our ATTENTION TO THE CAUSE, and not only on the effects/solutions.
We will learn from NATURE, the only “company” that has not gone bankrupt in over 4000M years, and it’s GENERATIVE SOLUTIONS.
> OBJECTIVES <
The participants will work in multidisciplinary groups (ex. architect + designer + business manager + constructor + communication specialist etc.) applying knowledge management tools, different approaches and nature-based optimization methods.
Listed objectives:
1. Improving the generative way of TURNING AN IDEA INTO A PROJECT through problem-solving thinking
2. Discovering nature’s ways of shaping evolutionary solutions
3. Getting out from our comfort zone and working together with other professionals in groups in order to achieve better solutions: Multidisciplinary Design Optimization
4. Learning to use technology to manage information in the decision making process
& surviving the whole week
> ATTENDANCE & COSTS <
> Early bird – until 17th March 2013
Lecture – 15 euro (includes presentations, food& drinks)
Workshop – 100 euro (includes lecture, food& drinks)
> Late bird – until 6th April 2013
Lecture – 25 euro (includes presentations, food& drinks)
Workshop – 120 euro (includes lecture, food& drinks)
…
y be impossible to assemble otherwise :) Volume of each part for just a 1m dome is about 90x90x20mm. You'd probably lose your job if you tried printing them in the office, but thanks for the thought!
Mr Stasiuk... firstly, a huge thank you for your help... I'd been trying this for months and months but your help was the light at the end of the tunnel! The reason my meshes wouldn't boolean was thay they were not closed or manifold. I didn't have the PullVertices component you used to get the cylindrical holes to fit to a size so I tried not joining the cylinders, smoothing the rest and keeping naked edges fixed so I could join them together after smoothing. I think this left me with a non-manifold mesh with holes in. Also, under closer inspection, my panel meshes had holes in them! Eventually I created the same PullVertices effect by working out the distance and direction of the mesh vertices inside the cylinders, from the cylinders and moved the vertices... I really didn't understand how the data structure moved only the points I wanted, where I wanted them but it worked and thank you again for giving me the logic to re-create. Once all my meshes were in order then Rhino handled the booleans (my laptop would not handle trying to do all these ops inside GH so I finish them manually in Rhino - Adding the pane slots, adding the M6 bolt and nut cavities and splitting the component using the panel plane intersections).
Mateusz, they have different pricing structures... a handling fee, cost per cm3, lower price per additional print, price for total bounding box volume, etc etc... its like comparing mobile phone tarifs! Some really want to help you find the best way though, so I'll find a way!
I'll add some rendered dome assembly photos tonight and hopefully one day some photos of a real build!
Thanks again to everyone that offered help and advice!…
Added by martyn hogg at 5:05pm on January 23, 2014
ngy (as stand alone product). But on the other hand it's widely used and is the "standard" seed for cultivating the new generations. With this in mind I rate it ... er ... hmm... higher than Generative Components. Because GC (and the ParaSolids 3d kernel that derives from Siemens/NX) may be mighty (if we forget this, this and that, he he) but is almost totally inaccessible: requires several years of training and then ... yes ... it can eat GH for breakfast as regards AEC matters (but this IS NOT the point, nor it means that GH is "worst").
The analogy is: GH is like my FireBlade (homogenous, easy) and GC is like my Panigale (lethal if not treated properly). On the other hand Honda cells 100 times more Blades than Ducati Panigales.
2. This cultivation thingy is/was NEVER understood by Bentely Systems (I had some very nasty Skype sessions on that matter, he he).A critical mistake that one, but then again Bentley doesn't like going to bed with individuals and ... maybe ... they are in the right path (a bit hilly, he he).
3. Dynamo on the other hand ... well I'm a Bentley Systems man so "by default" I dislike AutoDesk products and/or bought ones (TSplines excluded). But humor apart ... I dislike Revit for a vast variety of reasons the primary being the approach for effective parallel/team work. AECOSim on the other hand is brilliant on that matter. But Revit is dangerously close to become the BIM standard (which means - by default - that's the wrong thing).
4. Thus ... are R/GH in danger for playing a role in real-life AEC? Well ... if there was not the cultivation thing ... maybe.
In conclusion: In Planet Zorg this is the way to do AEC stuff: GH (scripts only) + GH add ons (if required) + GC (works only with scripts anyway) + AECOSim + you name it + CATIA/NX + you name it.
Moral: A classic Alice in the wonderland case that one: i.e. an amoral one, he he
take care, Jack the Ripper…
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…
-life fabrication issues ... then ... well ... that's the reason for the Skype.
2. In general I would say that exploiting parametric "arrangements" (in the broad sense) is less than 5% of the whole ... given the fact that in real-life there's a lot of other constrains. Again using Kim's IKEA note: for instance packaging (at least for the magnitude of IKEA's business) is rather more important than ANY smart of stupid design.
3. Reliable components VS Design/Manufacturing cost IS the ultimate "fitness" challenge: this involves bottom-top design disciplines (not doable with Rhino/GH by any means) and ... well... some top dog feature driven MCAD app. Most makers/designers use the cheapo alternatives (SolidWorks/Creo etc etc) and the results ... well .. you get what you've paid for, he he.
4. Why bottom-top may you ask? (and what means this anyway?) Well ... one "connecting node" that would been made 1Z times at the minimum cost possible is a 100 times more challenging task than designing a shelve system that uses that node. See for instance A LOT of IKEA solutions (i.e. the nuts and bolts of them) that are exceptionally flimsy, very badly designed and ... well ... suitable for 1 week's usage (but there's some others that are less faulty). On the other hand IKEA actually serves the ephemeral ... thus ... this MAY be intentional (recycle > buy > recycle > buy > ...).
I buy therefor I exist.
For instance a certain IKEA mold injected "multi join node" for a given series of shelves ... it would sustain less than 5 minutes "abuse" (in case that someone would attempt to "rearrange" things). Moral: reality and theory ARE not the same thing.
I could continue until the end of Time listing "aspects" of the whole puzzle related with production issues ... but for the moment I would conclude by the following:
GH is a good "general" purpose graphic editor and Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modelling app. If you combine these 2 ... you can easily outline what you can and what you can't (or shouldn't) do on that subject.…
of similar/WOW buildings that failed (or leaked) including a very famous one.
2. You must use instance definitions for the truss parts (sleeves, cones, rods and the likes) otherwise the whole thing could become an unworkable nightmare.
3. You must address clash issues otherwise doing it is out of question. These affect the skin parts as well (but as I said: this is 100% pro territory).
4. Your structural analysis (in order to make any sense) must deal with real life components either commercially available or bespoke things designed for the specific project.
5. Wind/Seismic effects can cause skin component issues/failures/leaks as it happened ... well ... in a variety of contemporary famous buildings.
6. Vapor condensation yields (in most of similar cases) buildings that "rain from the inside" - nothing serious, mind: just have an umbrella ready.
…
pavilion) and from that i want to fabricate it using some paper or card bored .
for modeling the pavilion i used a simple kangaroo based algorithm to generate the desired form using mesh 3d plane faces . there was no problem with this part and i was able to get the mesh from geometry out put . then i wanted to use that output mesh to panelize it and then adding tabs and the nesting and cutting to get the parts. but the problem was every tutorial i looked up were using surfaces to panelize and nest so this was the first problem to convert the mesh into a surface and then panelazing and nesting . i tried using the mesh2nurbs but it didn't work out for me . (because i needed a single surface not some poly surfaces) . (attachment | input mesh )
so i started from the beginning and tried using a surface as an input for kangaroo and thus getting a surface as an output so i did that and tried to create a surface by the Surface from points component . and the result was not good the surface was kinda messed up and the the reason was the points were not ordered well i guess . so this was another problem for me . (attachment | input surface)(picture below)
so basically i have a few main questions :
1. is there a tutorial or any topic or book or somthing that explains from 0 to 100 from design to fabrication (as an example a pavilion) ?
2. can i use the mesh to panelize and nest and then fabricate ? and are there any tips or tricks to it ?
3. is the starting from surface for me a good idea or not ?
i am extremely sorry for talking this much and i'm grateful for the time you spent on reading this .
best wishes ; Babak.
…
e point in each pair that has the lowest Z value (then later the highest Z)... The problem is the intersections are not returned sorted by Z, sometimes the lower point is first in the list, sometimes last. So I need to sort those pairs of points by Z value.I noticed the sort points component does not have any inputs for sort criteria... RhinoScript SortPoints allows you to sort by:
blnOrder
Optional. Number. The component sort order, where:
Value
Component Sort Order
0 (default)
X, Y, Z
1
X, Z, Y
2
Y, X, Z
3
Y, Z, X
4
Z, X, Y
5
Z, Y, X
Will we get something like this in GH? For now I think I can manage to analyze the Z for each and re-order the points, but a more comprehensive point sorting tool might be nice... no? Or did I miss something obvious? --Thx, --Mitch…