pending on registered students
Who is it for > Aimed to professionals or students in engineering, architecture, art, design (interior, industrial, product, jewelry, furniture...) and backgrounds related
Requirements > Zoom app and Rhino 6 or 7 for Windows or Mac.
Is previous knowledge in Grasshopper required?
It is expected students know the Grasshopper interface, connections, basic operations and transformations, simple data list structures: longest list, flatten, graft... We do recommend check the program of the course "Grasshopper Basics" HERE in order to make sure you have knowledge on these tools.
Dates April 9-10
Registration deadline Monday April 4
Schedule: Saturday and Sunday. 3,30 - 8,30pm
More info:
https://controlmad.com/eng/formacion/curso-grasshopper-intermedio/
…
pp, meant for manufacturing domain):
And from there I also exported to 3ds Max for some quick rendering:
Recently I decided to re-model it with GH (the main structure), just for fun:
Which took 12 hours.
Granted, I didn't take it to the same level of detail (the GH version is missing decking and rear screens), which would probably be a few more hours.
Also, the GH def is messier than what I am used to doing.
Nonetheless, my first curiosity was simply how long it would take to re-do.
It's an odd comparison, but at the end I felt it was an interesting exercise.
Modeling efficiency is not a topic discussed that often here, any comments?…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 11:23pm on February 22, 2011
tly light vehicles such as bicycles and variations thereof. Although frame design is mostly of a structural nature, there are a number of elements that interact mechanically. Also, as you may be aware, bicycle and high grade tubing is not of constant section so shelling method in FEA is out of the question, but even so, because the joint needs to be modeled very accurately, that means different geometry and properties for welded area, heat affected area and base material; like so a simpler FEA package may not suffice.
I don't know karamba extensively, rather superficially, actually, but I'm under the impression it mostly deals with beam analysis. Pls correct me if I am under the wrong impression. I must say it would be very nice to have a complete FEA package inside GH really!!
Typical workflow for me would be to model everything in Solidworks, and then export to Ansys Mechanical. Although Ansys needs to read every input and naturally remesh back again, integration within Solidworks, Catia, Inventor, Creo, Solidthinking... and the sort, works reasonably well.
Now, I don't remember Ansys having a Rhinoceros plugin so that you could bridge the 2 together, but maybe I should go check again.
3) Great work with that fractal tree. It's nice to know it is a possibility at least. I have tried Apophysis and others, but to my knowledge there's not an application that could deliver 3D fractal designs in a way that you could further manipulate with conventional modelling techniques, maybe apply textures and render, or export to CAM, 3D printing... etc.
P.S.: I have tried all the apps mentioned above and then some more. All of them have serious limitations when it comes to parametric design. For complex models they crash plenty upon rebuilding... a number of time consuming errors appear, and general work flow isn't very efficient for purely parametric work. Speaking for myself, I'd rather spend the time on a definition that enables me to have full control and then generate a new result within seconds, than model everything very quickly and then taking a long time with each new result.
(Thanks for the replies and sorry for the long text, you asked to elaborate).…
and...how to bake meaningful assembly/component type of structures for the rest of the tedious work required > you know what I mean > the ugly part of our business > documentation drawings, BOM, tech etc etc etc.
For instance, let's focus to the planar glazing support items: absolutely no need to make them it via any smart app since they are plenty of them around in the market (unless you are I.M.Pei and you do that exceptional Pyramid wonder thing).
But...the goal is...hmm...to create some kind of "smart" (kinda, he he) solution where components (the "baked" ones, so to speak) are structured in such a way that further work (via conventional CAD apps) is easily managed. To speak in Rhino dialect: nested Blocks and/or nested Refs. Like having components in GH that could manage nested Block/Ref stuff (but I guess that you can do it rather easily via VB).
Back to that ugly truss: It's obvious that this is a nested collection of "repetitions" (should I call them iterations?) : meaning that a void top node owns a module truss that owns 2 supportive sub-trusses that are made by some pipes that own connecting items that own the planar glazing items etc etc etc.
With regard the "own" thing: Imagine a CAD file that is simply a container/place holder of some individual entities (called Models). These Models can be "linked" to others (in a nested parent/child relation). Links can be external of internal. They can be either References or Cells or Shared Cells. This the way that Microstation classifies/handles "entities" (a bit primitive, mind, but nobody's perfect - for the real thing see CATIA/NX).
Back to that ugly truss: Obviously this structure (actually the assembly/component combo related with the given solution) has to be transfered into classic 2d extractions (say: plans, elevations, sections et all). This is done why a weird thing called Dynamic Views/live markers in Microstation (you define Clip planes in 3d space that manage 2d extraction content in something called Drawing Model that controls other weird things called Sheet Models, all these live linked etc etc).
To make things more spicy...these 2d extractions can been viewed as master detail directives: from where 1:1 classic details are made (that is: you apply more Dynamic Views and live markers and life goes on - red pepper extra strong Russian vodka is a must when you do that type of work).
This is where Rhino is out of his depth (but to be fair: it's not designed for this type of work) and also this is where Microstation has no competition at least for AEC purposes (but to be fair: it is designed for this type of work).
Of course Autodesk...well expect soon the Gen Comp equivalent for Revit...a fact that complicates things (for Bentley) a bit given the Revit mania in the AEC world.
Moral: intelligence is good but it's only the tip of the iceberg. …
r.
Jon has already done some very interesting stuff with regard decomposing matters using IFC schema (I'm not a strong admirer of any schema policy mind - for a variety of reasons).
Now the chaotic case:
1. This is deliberately fuzzy, faulty and chaotic in order to indicate the need (at least IMHO) for a next step with regard handling and visualizing (on a per individual data item basis, not on a per branch basis) data trees.
2. Why this Tree Manager future thing could boost GH up to an unseen level? Exploit the PDF attached - use Saved views and/or the Model Tree "decomposer" (file is greatly reduced in detail - only 1 out of 5 floors shown, no envelope stuff, stripped out of everything actually etc etc etc). Among a variety of things observe that there's transformations that are "selectively" applied whilst various components remain intact (in other words: invite existed "static" objects into the smart chaos) - this means that we need a far better control VS the series (of various type of data) that outline the solution of similar things.
3. What could/should do such a "visual" Tree Manager? Could he function within the existed "one Canvas for all things" environment? Do we need N "sub-canvas" (kinda the Views in any CAD app these days) to handle and visualize complex tree operations? Do we need control on a per data item basis? Do we need a re-mapper of a totally different kind? Do we need a Bake Manager? Do we need a Scenario (parameter combos stored etc) Manager?
Let's the debate begin
Best, Peter
…
an almost planar tissue (your case) can cause a variety of issues up to the undo able state (metal parts/components grow in size as well for no reason). See forces estimated by FF below.
2. Therefor I strongly suggest to consider Plan B (a) mastermind a secondary "anchor" capability in order to achieve a far more stable system (b) use a mount design that can support this (and comply with the attractor concept of yours). Here's a variable mount custom system (mostly machined AND not cast) that is suitable for the scope (Rhino reads the stp file OK .... but makes a colossally big file - thus I attach here the original).
3. On first sight lot's of things in this system appear "odd". For instance: is it stable? Why these double cables are used? How far can be adjusted? (that's a classic case for feature driven parametric design - not doable with Rhino).
4. This concept (strut axis exported only) is tested in FORMFINDER and some other far more complex membrane apps that I use quite often (not RhinoMembrane). Here's is what FF tells us about:
Observe a different kind of "stress" when this is converted to radial type:
5. If you insert the stp file to the Rhino file provided (exactly as exported from FORMFINDER - no mods of mine of any kind) you'll see what goes where (and why). That way the usage of double cables is rather obvious (and a lot other things - for instance the way that the struts achieve "equilibrium", see the slots in the base mount plate.
6. If this approach is worth considering your definition requires some serious rethinking (far more simpler/manageable with the drawback that the real parts they are "static" they can adjust only as far this particular solution allows them to do - controlling them parametrically is clearly impossible with the current state of R/GH capabilities).`
All in all: this case works because the cables push the anchor points downwards and the struts push them upwards.
more in a while
…
reaky thing consisting from triangulated "modules" (i.e an assembly out of this, this and that) where the exterior edges ARE always under tension (= SS 304/316 cables OR nylon) and the interior ones MAY be under compression ( = steel, aluminum, wood, carbon) OR ... some of them ...may be under tension. Bastardized T trusses deviate a bit from theory ... but who cares? (not me anyway). T trusses have many variants (but as the greatest ever said: Less is More).
2. Large scale T for AEC is the art of pointless since it costs around the GNP of Nigeria. Here's some indicative components from a module of a multi adjustable TX system costing (the module) ~ the price of my Panigale (Google that):
The above is mailed to a friend who has MIT (yes, that MIT: the top dog) on sight ... therefor he needs some appropriate "credentials", he he.
3. The distance that separates the above with the demo TDT node provided is around 666.666 miles - but we don't care: we are after Art not some testimony to vanity.
4. On purpose I've used a smallish ring to give you a clear indication upon the constrain numero uno in truss design: CLASH matters.
5. You'll need:
(a) A decision related with the tensioners (classic Norseman + SS cables or nylon machined thingies?).
(b) A machinist who can do elementary stuff (like the adapters) and can weld this to that (the "ring" for instance). His abilities must be 1 in a scale of 100. If the fella has a computer (not a CRAY) and he knows what 3dPDF is (hmm) ... well ... use that way to communicate with him PRIOR designing anything: He must agree on the parts BEFORE the whole is attempted (as a design in GH or in some other app).
(c) A carpenter with a wood lathe for the obvious. BTW: BEFORE doing any TDT attempt > ask the carpenter about the available wood strut sizes. Against popular belief DO NOT varnish the wood (use exterior alkyd/oil stains from some top maker like the notorious US company PPG).
http://www.ppgpaints.com/products/paints-stains-data-sheets
(d) Good quality cigars (and espresso) plus some classic music (ZZTop, PFloyd, Cure, Stones, U2 etc etc) during the assembly.
(e) Faith to the Dark Side (see my avatar).
May the Force (the dark option) be with you.…
se enseñan los principios de modelado básico y orgánico en Rhinoceros. En Grasshopper se estudian los principios de Parametrización, panelización y análisis en Grasshopper, así como el proceso de manufactura digital para maquinaria de corte Láser y CNC.
UN solo pago anticipado $5,000.00
Pagos diferidos $5,500.00*
*reserva tu lugar con el 50%
De lunes a viernes de 10 am a 18 pm
Del 23 al 27 de julio de 2012
DURACION: 40 HORAS
SESIONES: 5 DE 8 HORAS
o info@dimensiontallerdigital.com
informes al 55 (50 16 0634) con Mayri Gallegos (o al cel. 55 28 85 24 73)
Incluye material para corte digital.…
nd then writes some data to a certain range of cells, but currently I am missing the small bit of code to save the file and then close that certain excel workbook. One other thing to note is that I'm writing into another excel file concurrently from another set of VB componenets, which must remain open, so I don't want to save & close that file. - Only the file which I'm writing data to from this VB component needs to be saved & closed. Any help would be appreciated.
Here is the current bit of code:
Rhino.Runtime.HostUtils.DisplayOleAlerts(False)If _write = True Then'Dim val As DoubleDim row As IntegerDim column As IntegerDim Pole As StringDim Angle As DoubleDim cellValue As StringDim rowstart As Integer
Dim xlApp As ObjectxlApp = System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal.GetActiveObject("Excel.Application")Dim wb As Object = xlApp.Workbooks.Open("W:\Bay Bridge Aiming\Knuckle Plate Aiming\Re-work_Field-Aim_20m.xlsx")Dim sheet As Object = wb.Worksheets("Factory-Aim")
rowstart = 0
Dorowstart += 1cellValue = sheet.cells(rowstart, 1).valueLoop Until cellValue = ""
row = rowstartcolumn = 1For Each Pole In Pole_IDsheet.Cells(row, column).value = Polerow = row + 1Next
row = rowstartcolumn = 2For Each Angle In KnucklePlt_Anglesheet.Cells(row, column).value = Anglerow = row + 1Next
End IfA = 0
Much thanks,
Joel…
Added by Joel DeBoef at 12:29pm on October 23, 2012