sion app (Modo, Z Brush etc) in order to get "as equal" as possible mesh faces.
For instance ... see a W depth truss (tri mesh > meaning that the "out" grid is hexagons) out from a Kangaroo "inflated" mesh:
2. A space frame is NOT a collection of abstract lines ... meaning that clash members detection (via trigonometry and NOT by checking boolean intersections) is far more important than the "concept" it self. If "live" alterations are required for addressing local clash issues ... well ... that's 100% impossible with native components.
See a typical clash detection capability:
3. A truss without proper connectivity Data Trees means nothing in real-life (vertices to edges, vertex to vertex, edges to vertices).
4. Each "standard" truss member (say: sleeves, cones and the likes) should be an instance definition placed in space according appropriate orienting planes. That way you may be able to handle thousands of components that in real-life participate in any truss of a certain size.
All the above are far easier to do with code (V4 is impossible with components).…
ents (e.g. only fabric between 2 radial cable). But if I try to simulate a completely whole structure like picture below + if I trying to model a material that has more degree subdivision + adding diagonals (as resistance to shear deformation which causes the creases like Daniel Pikels example of tablecloth drop), then I have huge problem to deal with my hardware.
(I am using Intel Xeon 4 cores, 2.93GHz with 4GB RAM and running in Win7 in 64 bit but with Rhino 32 bit.)
(Roof geometry can be completely asymmetrical, so let’s assuming that we can’t array the resulting geometries!)
There are some discussions about how to increase the processing power of grasshopper:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/is-there-a-plan-to-suppor...
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/performance-of-grasshopper?
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/grasshopper-cpu-optimization
As I know that the GH is single threaded, we could over clocking the CPU + give lot of RAM.
I am curious if Kangaroo and other Apps are following the same performance-rule (single thread) like Rhino/ G.H? And what would be the key-feature to increase the power of Rhino/GH/Kangaroo in order to process the case I mentioned before (completely retractable roof)?
- Which level of CPU? Or constraint of CPU over clocking when necessary and capacity of RAM)
- How fine tuning my PC for best performance? (Parallel computing, c-flex…)
- is GPU a matter? (E.g. in Animation standard: Nvidia CUDA Quadro 4000+)
Or probably just a suggestion of workstation ;-)
Sorry I am not expertise of computer technical…
Thanks!…
w elements (e.g. only fabric between 2 radial cable). But if I try to simulate a completely whole structure like picture below + if I trying to model a material that has more degree subdivision + adding diagonals (as resistance to shear deformation which causes the creases like your example of tablecloth drop), then I have huge problem to deal with my hardware.
(I am using Intel Xeon 4 cores, 2.93GHz with 4GB RAM and running in Win7 in 64 bit but with Rhino 32 bit.)
(Roof geometry can be completely asymmetrical, so let’s assuming that we can’t array the resulting geometries!)
There are some discussions about how to increase the processing power of grasshopper:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/is-there-a-plan-to-support-multicore-in-the-future
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/performance-of-grasshopper?
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/grasshopper-cpu-optimization
As I read that the GH is single threaded, we could over clocking the CPU + give lot of RAM.
I am curious if Kangaroo and other Apps are following the same performance-rule (single thread) like Rhino/ G.H? And what would be the key-feature to increase the power of Rhino/GH/Kangaroo in order to process the case I mentioned before (completely retractable roof)?
- Which level of CPU? Or constraint of CPU over clocking when necessary and capacity of RAM)
- How fine tuning my PC for best performance? (Parallel computing, c-flex…)
- is GPU a matter? (E.g. in Animation standard: Nvidia CUDA Quadro 4000+)
Or probably just a suggestion of workstation ;-)
Sorry I am not expertise of computer technical…
Thanks!
…
Added by Jon to Kangaroo at 3:31am on June 27, 2014
ime runs out, of unexplored planets. These masters of gravity risk their lives for the adrenaline, dodging gigantic rocks that could hit their ships crashing into planets and no hope that they can be rescued.
Requires Kangaroo and Human (and in full with Firefly).
Goal of the game
You have four minutes to get six stars and reach the goal. Or die trying.
If a satellite hits you, you will leave fired.
The game has three types of control
1 Using the keyboard (requires Firefly). 2 With an external device such as a smartphone or tablet (requires Firefly and TouchOSC app). 3 Using the mouse, from the grasshopper interface.
Download files
Gh, 3dm, touchosc and textures.
Video
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/video/space-riders…
ll geometry.
The difference with programs like Inventor is that they are made for production, regardless of the fabrication method. I won't go into detail about that, and instead focus on the modeling process.
In this little model, the starting point actually is a bit obvious, the foundation.
The only contents in the 3dm file are 27 lines. These indicate the location of each footing, and the direction of the tilt of each column. Everything else is defined in GH with the use of numbers as input parameters.
Needless to say, instead of those lines you could obviously generate lines and control the number of columns and panels, hence establish their layout, with any algorithmic or non-algorithmic criteria you please. That marks a major difference between GH and Inventor.
You can generate geometry with Inventor via scripting/customization (beyond iLogic), with transient graphics for visual feedback similar to GH's red-default previews. However Inventor's modeling functions are not set to input and output data trees. I won't go into detail on that, but suffice to say that the data tree associativity of GH was for me the first major difference I noticed. I've used other apps with node diagram interfaces like digital fusion for non-linear video editing since the late 90's, so the canvas did not call my attention when I first started using GH.
Anyways, here's a screen capture of the foundational lines:
In the first group of components, the centerlines of the rear columns are modeled:
And the locations in elevation for connection points are set. Those elevations were just numbers I copied from Excel, but you can obviously control that any way you please. I was just trying to model this quickly.
The same was done for the rear columns:
The above, believe it or not, took me the first 5 hours to get.
Here's a screen capture of what the model and definition looked like after 4 hours, not much:
If you're interested, next post I can get into the sketching part you mentioned, which is a bit cumbersome with GH, but not really.
I wouldn't say that using GH to do this little model was cumbersome, it just needed some thinking at the beginning. You do similar initial thinking when working with a feature-based modeler.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 12:44am on February 24, 2011
ss) .
Anyway...since you look to me like a nice fella, and you are after tensile membranes ...er... I have good, bad and ugly news:
Good news: I do hope that you are a Bushido type of Architect-to-be: Obeying the Code no matter the cost (i.e. (a) Less is More, (b) Form follows Function, (c) Always serve Modesty and fight Vanity).
Bad news: Whist the component bloodshed continues (I asked some assistance from the best C# guru in my practice)...
... I reckon that this IS not the way to outline the module fixing brackets (and/or any membrane related SS 316L stuff : mini masts, tensioners blah blah).
This is:
Ugly news: But inviting real-life components like the above to the parametric chaos (and killing any argument against the so called parametric/smart thing) requires other things far and away from what Rhino/GH are designed to do (at least at present time). But we can fake things a bit (we are professional liars by trade, don't you think so?): I'll reform that chaotic pasta first and then I'll provide you with some real-life multi adjustable custom components (the variation situation that you are attempting to emulate with the attractor) suitable for the job (alas: Rhino can't understand what nested parametric driven feature modeling is) ... and that could bring your teacher(s) into a certain crisis: what are these things and how's possible being created with a parametric app? (but then again I bet that they never heard about CATIA - not to mention spending 15 years with that ugly thing, he he).
Moral: Have faith to the Code.
…
y to heaven (or hell) is full of pain,frustration and tears. In plain English: if you are not totally committed (and willing to pay the heavy price) ... well ... what about forgetting all that freaky stuff? (the best option, trust me)
Note: 99% of beginners dream to learn programing in order to make geometry. But the truth is that this is the least (and rather the most insignificant) that you can achieve especially when working in teams with lot's of CAD/MCAD apps (and verticals) in the practice of tomorrow (bad news: tomorrow is already yesterday).
Anyway: How to go to Hell in just 123 easy steps
Step 1: get the cookiesThe bible PlanA: C# In depth (Jon Skeet).The bible PlanB: C# Step by step (John Sharp).The bible PlanC: C# 5.0 (J/B Albahari) > my favoriteThe reference: C# Language specs ECMA-334The candidates:C# Fundamentals (Nakov/Kolev & Co)C# Head First (Stellman/Greene)C# Language (Jones)Step 2: read the cookies (computer OFF)Step 3: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)...
Step 122: re-read the cookies (computer OFF)Step 123: Open computer > burn computer > computers are a bad thing (not to mention the Skynet trivial thingy).May The Force (the Dark Option) be with you.
…
ike this, and more specifically about Lofted geometry, is that if you give the Loft function a bunch of complex curves to match the edges of, the resulting Loft surface does not always match the curves used to make the surface. If you have 2 Loft surfaces that meet at the same curve (for instance, when picking the top curve of an inside and outside Loft surface to make a closed lip), the connection between them will have tiny gaps in various places. I attribute this to truncation and/or roundoff errors in calculating the Lofted surfaces.
However, it seems that using the Cap function actually eliminates this problem by turning an open Brep Loft into a closed/solid one. Of course I have no idea why this happens, but it does eliminate naked edges, edge gaps, and any other weirdness associated with joining Loft surfaces.
Before discovering this method I spent about a week trying all the suggestion you mentioned. None of them worked. All of the Join functions failed, different meshing parameters had no effect, and Mesh Smooth and Weld did not help either.
In pretty much all of these cases the 3D Builder app that I use for fixing/simplifying STL files exported from Rhino would run for a very long time, forever, or add artifacts (like a closed top) that rendered the part unprintable.
I have changed my GH layout to incorporate the Cap/SDiff functions now, but if you' like a 3DM file that uses the previous method I can certainly go back and create one for you.
…
Added by Birk Binnard at 9:35am on September 14, 2016
r graphics get saved as 24x24 pixel images before they are put into the grasshopper application, which means the icons look like crap when you zoom in. This is the aforementioned problem that needs to be addressed in GH2. There have historically been two approaches to this issue:
Provide pixel images with several sizes.
Render vector graphics directly.
Option 1 is common for apps that do not have variable levels of zoom, such as Windows Explorer. When explorer shows file icons it either shows them in 16x16, 32x32, 48x48, 96x96, or these days, various HUGE sizes. As a result *.ico files allow you put in different images for all these target sizes. Since Grasshopper has variable zoom levels, this is not an ideal solution. Also, it requires a lot more work per icon.
Option 2 is becoming more and more popular as increased graphics speed now allows for the real-time rendering of vector graphics. Yet, you still need a renderer that knows how to draw vector geometry crisply at low sizes. All vector renderers I know just interpolate the geometry linearly and if a line happens to end up 'between pixels' it's just fuzzy.
I don't have hard and fast rules for the icons, but I try to adhere to at least these:
Keep a border of 2 pixels free around the icon content. So basically only use the inner 20x20 pixels rather than the 24x24 you're allowed. This is needed because the drop shadow needs to go there.
Only draw silhouette edges around shapes, not inner creases. Typically a 1-pixel line will do. I prefer to use a dark version of the fill colour rather than black for edges.
Loose curves can be drawn in 1 or 2 pixel thicknesses, depending on how important the curve is.
Try to avoid text in your icons (not always possible).
Stick to 1 colour family per icon, preferably per icon family. You can add highlights with another colour if you must, but too many hues make an icon hard to read (for the example the [Voronoi] icon, it has red, green and blue and it's a bit of a mess, on the other hand [Colour Wheel] has the full spectrum and seems to work quite well...).
Very roughly speaking, if there's both black and red geometry in an icon, it means the red is component input and the black is component output.
Drop shadows are pixel effects, applied to the 24x24 image. They have a blurring radius of 2 pixels, a horizontal offset of 1 pixel to the right, a vertical offset of 1 pixel to the bottom and they are 65% black.
When you use high contrast shapes (for example black edges on a light background) the anti-aliasing provided by vector renderers such as Xara or Illustrator won't be enough to make it look smooth. I'd recommend avoiding high contrast if at all possible, but if not possible then draw a 1-pixel line around the dark bits in 95% transparent black. This effectively extends the anti-aliasing range from 1.5 to 2.5 pixels and it helps make things looks smoother.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…
hat aren’t completely there. BIM will have to continue to evolve some more if their supporters want to get to realize the promise that still is. I can’t say much about PLM, but I would say that both BIM and PLM should be considered in future developments of GH and Rhino. David has said several times that some GH limitations regarding geometry and data structures (central to interoperability) are actually Rhino limitations. So, I wouldn’t put so much pressure on David for this, or at least I would distribute the pressure also on the core Rhino development team.
Talking about Rhino vs. GH geometry, there is one (1) wish I have: support for extrusion geometry. GH already inputs extrusion elements from Rhino, but they are converted to breps. Is not a bad thing per se. The problem is when you need to bake several breps that make the Rhino file to weight several hundred MB. When these breps are actually prismatic, extrusion-like solids, is a shame that they aren’t stored as Rhino V5’s extrusion geometry in a file of just a couple of MB (I overcame this once with an inelegant RhinoScript that wasn’t good for other people). This was one of RhinoBIM’s main arguments. We can develop a structural model made of I-beams in GH using the Extrude components. We should be able to bake them as extrusions. That would also work for urban models with thousands of prismatic massing buildings (e.g. extruded footprints). Even GH’s boxes are baked as breps! Baking boxes as extrusions could be practical for voxelated or Minecraft-like models.
(2) Collaborative network support. Maybe with worksession handling, or something that aloud project team members to work on a single definition or in external references or something alike. I know there is another Rhino limitation on this, but maybe clusters are already going in that direction?
And maybe on the plug-ins domain:
(3) Remote control panel that could be really “remote”, like from other computer or device. There is an old Android App for that, but is not only a matter of updating. I mean, it would be great to control a slider with the accelerometer of an Android phone, but to have that on an iPhone will require another development team. If GH could support networks, a remote counterpart of a RCP plug-in could be developed as a cross-platform web app. I don’t know if you can access accelerometer functionality through HTML5 already, but for now, asking a client (or an spectator or any stakeholder for that matter) to control your sliders from gestures of his/her own phone would be awesome (maybe Firefly will fill that hole?).
(4) GIS support. GH already imports .shp files. Meerkat can even access the database, but what about writing to shapefiles or generating our own with databases processed/generated in GH?
(5) SketchUp support. Not only starchitects and corporations are using GH in the AEC. There are a lot of small firms, freelancers and students interested. Most of them use SketchUp for 3D modeling (not CATIA, neither Revit). Yes, you can import/export .skp from Rhino, but if GH could support nested block at bake time (also mentioned by others), it could write .skp files with complex relations of blocks (that are called components in SketchUp) and nested groups, going beyond what Rhino can export.
(6) Read/Write other formats. There are some challenges with proprietary formats that are not completely supported by Rhino, but they’re still a lot of open formats that are relevant to the fields of GH users, like stl and ply for 3D-printing. It could be nice to write mesh colors to a ply for 3D-printing a colored prototype based on GH colors. There are others, like IGES, STEP, COLLADA, etc. and 2D, like svg, odg and pdf. Some of them could offer special formatting options like custom data that the format supports but nobody uses just because is impractical to access this from direct modeling environments (but not from visual programming).
--Ernesto…