alluded to:
By the way, Riccardo, as you surely know, for this app, it really only makes sense to use odd integer values on the slider for "half-twists total counts"... When I used "2" with the chain, it froze GH/Rhino twice - perhaps because I didn't disable the offset surface code, I'm not sure - not enough time to explore that further.
So here is what I came up with for offsetting a holed surface - much less code!
Instead of offsetting the surface and using the two offsets as input for 'SrfMorph' to map the holes curves:
I accept the trimmed surface with holes (only one 'SrfSplit' operation instead of two).
'Untrim' the holed surface before doing the offsets.
'Copy Trim (Trim)' from the original holed surface to the two offset surfaces.
Get all the 'Edges' from both surfaces, 'Flip' and 'Loft' them to get all the edge surfaces (hole walls and outer edges).
'Brep Join' the offset holed surfaces and edge surfaces together.
The result is interesting... a "Open Brep" and two "Untrimmed Surface", which are the hidden, internal ends of the shape. Not quite what I wanted. Then I discovered that using 'DeBrep' to get the 'Faces (F)' and 'Brep Join' once more, I get a "Closed Brep" (a solid)!!?? Not sure why but glad it works. I ignore the two end surfaces using 'List Item'.
I suspect that the holes may be slightly different than the way I did it yesterday, but they look good to me. I have no idea how effective this will be with arbitrary, complex surfaces but I encapsulated this code into a 'Thicken' cluster, also enclosed in the attached code:
…
Added by Joseph Oster at 9:01am on October 10, 2015
You can create Design Options using the Iris Layer component!
For each set of geometries that you create, you can assign a layer and define whether it will be visible or not in Virtual Reality on the
Added by IrisVR to IrisVR at 8:34am on January 23, 2017
bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Matrix transforms and persistent constraints: I don't think this is true. The parts can have mates to other parts that preserve geometric relationships like 'coincident' , 'aligned' etc. These are essentially bi-directional. GH's algorithmic approach does not do relationships in the same / flexible way. In GH, the 'relationship' has to be part of the generation method that dependent on the creation sequence. I.e. draw line 2 perpendicularly from the end of point of line 1. If you are thinking about parts or assemblies sharing, or referencing parameters as part of the regen process, this is also possible. iLogic does this, and adds scripting. So does Catia. Inventor/iLogic can also access Excel and have all the parameter processing done centrally, if required.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
I wouldn't be too hasty here. Yes, you are right about compartmentalisation. I think this needs to happen with GH, in order to deal with scalability/everyday interoperability requirements. Confining projects to one script is not sustainable. MCAD apps have been doing this for ages with 'Relational Modeling'.The Adaptive Components placement example illustrates that it is beneficial to be able to script some 'hints' that can be used on placement of the component. Say, if your component requires points as inputs, then its should be able to find the nearest points to the cursor as it moves around. I think Aish's D# / DesignScript demo'd this kind of behaviour a few years ago. Similarly, Modo Toolpipe reminds me how a lot of UI based transactions can be captured as scripts (macro recorder etc). Allowing this input to be mixed in and/or extended by GH I think will yield a lot of 'modeling efficiency' around the edges. This is a (mis)using GH as an user-programmable 'jig' for placing/manipulating 'dumb' elements in Rhino. It may even give the 'dumb elements' a bit more 'intelligence' by leaving behind embedded attributes, like links to particular construction planes etc.Even if we confine ourselves to scripting. GH is a visual or graphic programming interface. A lot of 'insert and connect' tasks can be done more easily using graphic methods. If we need to select certain vertices on a mesh as inputs for, say, a facade panel, its going to be quicker to do this 'graphically' (like the AC example), then ferreting out the relevant indices in the data tree et al. The 'facade panel' script would then have some coding to filter/prompt the user as to what inputs were acceptable, and so on.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
Not sure what you mean here. If the i-parts are built up using sketches /profiles or other more rudimentary features (like Revits' profile/face etc family templates) then reuse should be fairly straight forward. I suppose you could make it like GH scripting, if you cut and paste or include script snippets that generate the desired Inventor features.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
I don't think this is true. Look at the automotive body design apps, which are mostly Catia based. All of the body parts are pretty much 'generative' and generated from splines, in a procedural way, using very similar approaches to GH. Or sheet metal design. It's not always about configuration of off-the-shelf items like bolts. And, the constraints manager is available to arbitrate which bit of script fires first, and your mundane workaday associative dimensions etc can update without getting run over by the DAG(s) :-)
…
folder. There are several possibilities for this.
The first that comes to mind is using symbolic links (also known as symlinks). They are like a special kind of shortcut. Whereas a shortcut is a small file itself that links to another location, a symlink is a link that to the operating system and pretty much anything else is indistinguishable from the actual thing. That's why a certain care has to be taken with them, but they are used by the OS much more than might be obvious at first. I have used them on OS X a lot (and in fact all of Time Machine works almost entirely through the use of symlinks). There is a good article on how to use Symlinks easily on Windows as well, using the Link Shell Extension.
So once it's installed you can go to your Grasshopper folder in Roaming and pick it as the link source like so:
Then you change to a location in for example your Dropbox or wherever else you fancy. I have a folder inside my personal Dropbox (we use Dropbox for Business at work, thats why I have 2 Dropbox folders), there is a folder called Apps, which is used by all sorts of Apps that sync using Dropbox. So just right-click in there and create a symlink like so:
So now it will create the symlink and when you double-click it, it will contain the contents of your Grasshopper folder and start syncing:
Sure enough, after some uploading you now have your folder in Dropbox and continually updating:
I will leave this now and see how I get on, but it should be fine and shouldn't cause any issues. Now doing this the other way round, for example to sync the folder on a second computer, that might be another story as things like permissions start to come into play, although it should theoretically work. I have done similar things in the past with other software, but Dropbox is not the best in keeping permissions. Or rather in most cases you DONT want the permissions to stay the same, but for them to be changed to whoever the user is on a different computer and that does not always work as expected. But worth a try. I don't have another computer at hand to try this. On the other computer you would to the steps in opposite order and pick the folder in the Dropbox as the link source and then drop the symlink in the roaming folder (rename the Grasshopper folder that is already in there, so in case it doesnt work you can delete the symlink and rename it back to what it was).
This should theoretically also work with other cloud backups or a file server, but I have not tried those.
You can delete the symlink in the dropbox without problems and it will just delete the link. If you delete something in the Grasshopper folder inside the dropbox it will also be deleted in the roaming folder.
Disclaimer: No guarantees, do this at your own risk, backup your grasshopper folder just in case, be careful with symlinks and use them sparingly, take notes of what you are doing, especially when doing this on more than one computer.
I know on OS X there are several tools specifically for Dropbox that basically do exactly the same like MacDropAny, I am sure there is similar stuff for Windows.…
Added by Armin Seltz at 2:56am on January 25, 2016
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011
GH works (b) creating feature driven very complex parametric parts manually (the trad way) ... and then combining them in assemblies derived from (a) with components derived from (b).
Exactly what Generative Components does (if we forget the bugs, the extremely slow response, the lack of any development, the bugs, the bugs and finally the bugs).
Creating collections (libraries) of components in Rhino it's pointless since he doesn't support feature driven modeling. This means constrained driven geometry (solids NOT surfaces - another reason for totally excluding Rhino for the scope) that describe the actual components (that belong to nested assemblies etc etc).
So back to (a) : The only thing that Rhino/GH can do (in real-life) is to outline an abstract topology with "basic/primitive" geometry in place (= lines in this case). Exactly what this WIP script does, in fact. Of course it can do calculations as well (clash detection AND drilling axis related stuff).
But never say never: let's inspect an example from some WIP project (AECOSim + Generative Components) of mine to see what can GH/Rhino additionally do (in real-life):
Imagine a rigid "ring" (the truss shown) that manages tensional forces (via cables) in a "ring like" formed tensile membrane combo. Membranes (inverse cones) pull the ring thing downwards and mast attached cables pull it upwards = equilibrium (or disaster if some cable fails, he he).
So assume that the abstract layout (lines, that is) is made with a similar GH script with the one posted here. Rhino can't even imagine doing the parametric fasteners shown - thus we exclude them from the equation.
But GH could(?) "indirectly" feed a proper CAD app (from AECOSim to CATIA) with "seed" information in order to help making the components and the assemblies of components.
For instance assume that every truss linear member is a classic MERO system (ball - sleeve - cone - tube -cone -sleeve - ball). It's pointless to create (in GH) and bake a nested Block structure with "real geometry" (surfaces, that is) and export it via STEP : we can export lines + coordinate systems instead (ACS) ... that could be sufficient for AECOSim to replace "parts containing lines + ACS" with real-life "parts containing constrained/feature driven solid objects".
So the real challenge here is to mastermind a suitable nested block structure (and an equivalent GH_structure) that could pass the right assembly/component info.
I'll be back soon with some add-on script that takes truss lines and makes them MERO style "surfaces" in order to practically outline the issue(s) and the goal.
…
e chosen to dive into Grasshopper. I’m about 6 months in. If some of my comments are completely off, please take that to mean that a feature is too inaccessible to a newish user rather that it’s just missing, as I may have stated.
One of my primary pain points is this. Things that can be done in other programs are invariably easier in other programs. This is a big enough issue that I doubt there’s an easy solution that an armchair qb like myself can offer up.
The interface:
I’ve used a lot of 3D programs. I’ve never encountered one as difficult as grasshopper. What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design. Yet PTC (Parametric Technology Corp.) has been doing parametric design software since 1985 and has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others.
In the early 2000's, when parametric design software was all the rage, McNeel stated quite strongly the Rhino would remain a direct modeler and would not become a parametric modeler. Trends come. Trends go. And the industry has been swinging back to direct modeling. So McNeel’s decision was probably ok. But I have to wonder if part of McNeel’s reluctance to incorporate some of the tried and proven ideas of other parametric packages doesn't have roots in their earlier declaration to not incorporate parametrics.
A Visual Programming Language:
I read a lot about the awesomeness and flexibility of Grasshopper being a visual programming language. Let’s be clear, this is DOS era speak. I believe GH should continue to have the ability to be extended and massaged with code, as most design programs do. But as long as this is front and center, GH will remain out of reach to the average designer.
Context sensitivity:
There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them.
Sliders:
I hate sliders. I understand them, but I hate ‘em. I think they should be optional. Ya, I know I can r-click on the N of a component and set the integer. It’s a pain, and it gives no feedback. The “N” should turn into the number if set. AAAnd, sliders should be context sensitive. I like that the name of a slider changes when I plug it into something. But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly. I shouldn't be able to plug in a “50” and have everything after turn red.
Components:
Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings.
And this item I’m guessing on. I’m not yet good enough at GH to know if this may have adverse effects. Reverse, Flatten, Graft, etc.; could these be context sensitive? Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?
Tighter integration with Rhino:
I'm not entirely certain what this would look like. Currently my work flow entails baking, making a few Rhino edits, and reinserting into GH. I question the whole baking thing, btw. Why isn't it just live geometry? That’s how other parametric apps work. Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset. I have to bake, offsetserf, and reinsert the geometry. I’m currently looking at the “Geometry Cache” and “Geometry Pipeline” components to see if they help. But I haven't been able to figure it out. Which leads me to:
Update all of the documentation:
I'm guessing this is an in process thing and you're working toward rolling GH from 0.9.00075 to 1.0. GH was being updated nearly weekly earlier this year. Then it suddenly stopped. If we're talking weeks before a full release, so be it. But if we're looking at something longer, a documentation update would help a lot. Geometry Cache and Geometry Pipeline’s help still read “This is the autogenerated help topic for this object. Developers: override the HtmlHelp_Source() function in the base class to provide custom help.” This does not help. And the Grasshopper Primer 2nd Ed. was written for GH 0.60007.
Grasshopper is fundamentally a 2D program:
I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen? Pretty much every 3D program in existence has this. I’m sure I can probably figure out how to deconstruct the breps, join the curves, loft, trim, and so forth. But does writing an algorithm to do what all other 3D programs do with a dialog box seem reasonable? I'm sure if you go command by command you'll find a ton on such things.
If you look at the vast majority of things done in GH, you'll note that they're mostly either flat or a fundamentally 2D pattern on a warped surface.
I've been working on a part that is a 3D voronoi trimmed to a 3D model. I've been trying to turn the trimmed voronoi into legitimate geometry for over a month without success.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/profiles/blogs/question-voronoi-3d-continued
I’ve researched it enough to have found many others have had the exact same problem and have not solved it. It’s really not that conceptually difficult. But GH lacks the tools.
Make screen organization easier:
I have a touch of OCD, and I like my GH layout to flow neatly. Allow input/output nodes to be re-ordered. This will allow a reduction in crossed wires. Make the wire positions a bit more editable. I sometimes use a geometry component as a wire anchor to clean things up. Being able to grab a wire and pull it out of the way would be kinda nice.
I think GH has some awesome abilities. I also think accessing those abilities could be significantly easier.
~p…
e a fundamental failure on my part. On the other hand, Grasshopper isn't supposed to be on a par with most other 3D programs. It is emphatically not meant for manual/direct modelling. If you would normally tackle a problem by drawing geometry by hand, Grasshopper is not (and should never be advertised as) a good alternative.
I get that. That’s why that 3D shape I’m trying to apply the voronoi to was done in NX. I do wonder where the GUI metaphor GH uses comes from. It reminds me of LabVIEW.
"What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design."
Grasshopper ships with about 1000 components (rounded to the nearest power of ten). I'm adding more all the time, either because new functionality has been exposed in the Rhino SDK or because a certain component makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Adding pre-canned components that do the same as '8 or 10 components strung together' for the heck of it will balloon the total number of components everyone has to deal with. If you find yourself using the same 8 to 10 components together all the time, then please mention it on this forum. A lot of the currently existing components have been added because someone asked for it.
It’s not the primary components that catalyzed this thought but rather the secondary components. I was toying with a component today (twist from jackalope) that made use of three toggle components. The things they controlled are checkboxes in other apps.
Take a look at this jpg. Ignore differences; I did 'em quickly. GH required 19 components to do what SW did with 4 commands. Note the difference in screen real estate.
As an aside, I really hate SolidWorks (SW). But going forward, I’ll use it as an example because it’s what most people are familiar with.
"[...] has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others."
Again, GH was not designed to be an alternative to these sort of modellers. I don't like referring to GH as 'parameteric' as that term has been co-opted by relational modellers. I prefer to use 'algorithmic' instead. The idea behind parameteric seems to be that one models by hand, but every click exists within a context, and when the context changes the software figures out where to move the click to. The idea behind algorithmic is that you don't model by hand.
I agree, and disagree. I believe parametric applies equally to GH AND SW, NX, and so forth, while algorithmic is unique to GH (and GC and Dynamo I think). Thus I understand why you prefer the term. I too tend to not like referring to GH as a parametric modeler for the same reason.
But I think it oversimplifies it to say parametric modelers move the clicks. SW tracks clicks the same way GH does; GH holds that information in geometry components while SW holds it in a feature in the feature tree. In both GH and SW edits to the base geometry will drive a recalculation, but more commonly, it’s an edit to input data, beit equations or just plain numbers, that drive a recalculation.
I understand the difference in these programs. What brought me to GH is that it can create a visual dialog that standard modelers can’t. But as I've grown more comfortable with it I’ve come to realize that the GUI of GH and the GUI of other parametric modelers, while looking completely different, are surprisingly interchangeable. Do not misconstrue that I’m suggesting that GH should replace it’s GUI with SW’s. I’m not. I refrain from suggesting anything specific. I only suggest that you allow yourself to think radically.
This is not to say there is no value in the parametric approach. Obviously it is a winning strategy and many people love to use it. We have considered adding some features to GH that would make manual modelling less of a chore and we would still very much like to do so. However this is such a large chunk of work that we have to be very careful about investing the time. Before I start down this road I want to make sure that the choice I'm making is not 'lame-ass algorithmic modeller with some lame-ass parametrics tacked on' vs. 'kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on'.
Given a choice, I'd pick kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on.
2. Visual Programming.
I'm not exactly sure I understand your grievance here, but I suspect I agree. The visual part is front and centre at the moment and it should remain there. However we need to improve upon it and at the same time give programmers more tools to achieve what they want.
I'll admit, this is a bit tough to explain. As I've re-read my own comment, I think it was partly a precursor to the context sensitivity point and touched upon other stated points.
This now touches upon my own ignorance about GH’s target market. Are you moving toward a highly specialized tool for programmers and/or mathematicians, or is the intent to create a tool that most designers can master? If it’s the former, rock on. You’re doing great. If it’s the latter, I’m one of the more technically sophisticated designers I know and I’m lost most of the time when using GH.
GH allows the same freedom as a command line editor. You can do whatever you like, and it’ll work or not. And you won’t know why it works or doesn't until you start becoming a bit of an expert and can actually decipher the gibberish in a panel component. I often feel GH has the ease of use of DOS with a badass video card in front.
Please indulge my bit of storytelling. Early 3D modelers, CATIA, Unigraphics, and Pro-Engineer, were unbelievably difficult to use. Yet no one ever complained. The pain of entry was immense. But once you made it past the pain threshold, the salary you could command was very well worth it. And the fewer the people who knew how to use it, the more money you could demand. So in a sense, their lack of usability was a desirable feature among those who’d figured it out.
Then SolidWorks came along. It could only do a fraction of what the others did, but it was a fraction of the cost, it did most of what you needed, and anyone could figure it out. There was even a manual on how to use it. (Craziness!) Within a few short years, the big three all had to change their names (V5, NX, and Wildfire (now Creo)) and change the way they do things. All are now significantly easier to use.
I can tell that the amount of development time that’s gone into GH is immense and I believe the functionality is genius. I also believe it’s ease of use could be greatly improved.
Having re-read my original comments, I think it sounded a bit snotty. For that I apologize.
3. Context sensitivity.
"There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them."
Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Whether or not a conversion between two data types makes sense is often dependent on the actual values. If you plug a list of curves into a Line component, none of them may be convertible. Should I therefore not allow this connection to be made? What if there is a single curve that could be converted to a line? What if you want to make the connection now, but only later plan to add some convertible curves to the data? What you made the connection back when it was valid, but now it's no longer valid, wouldn't it be weird if there was a connection you couldn't make again?
I've started work on GH2 and one of the first things I'm writing now is the new data-conversion logic. The goal [...] is to not just try and convert type A into type B, but include information about what sort of conversion was needed (straightforward, exotic, far-fetched. etc.) and information regarding why that type was assigned.
You are right that under some conditions, we can be sure that a conversion will always fail. For example connecting a Boolean output with a Curve input. But even there my preferred solution is to tell people why that doesn't make sense rather than not allowing it in the first place.
You bring up both interesting points and limits to my understanding of coding. I’ve reached the point in my learning of GH where I’m just getting into figuring out the sets tab (and so far I’m not doing too well). I often find myself wondering “Is all of this manual conditioning of the data really necessary? Doesn’t most software perform this kind of stuff invisibly?” I’d love to be right and see it go away, but I could easily be wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
5. Components.
"Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings."
I was thinking of just zooming in on a component would eventually provide easier ways to access settings and data.
I kinda like this. It’s a continuation of what you’re currently doing with things like the panel component.
"Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?"
It's almost impossible for me to know whether these things are 'unlikely' in any given situation. There are probably some cases where a suggestion along the lines of "Hey, this component is about to run 40,524 times. It seems like it would make sense to Graft the 'P' input." would be useful.
6. Integration.
"Why isn't it just live geometry?"
This is an unfortunate side-effect of the way the Rhino SDK was designed. Pumping all my geometry through the Rhino document would severely impact performance and memory usage. It also complicates the matter to an almost impossible degree as any command and plugin running in Rhino now has access to 'my' geometry.
"Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset."
That's the plan moving forward. A lot of algorithms in Rhino (Make2D, FilletEdge, Shelling, BlendSrf, the list goes on) are not available as part of the public SDK. The Rhino development team is going to try and rectify this for Rhino6 and beyond. As soon as these functions become available I'll start adding them to GH (provided they make sense of course).
On the whole I agree that integration needs a lot of work, and it's work that has to happen on both sides of the isle.
You work for McNeel yet you seem to speak of them as a separate entity. Is this to say that there are technical reasons GH can only access things through the Rhino SDK? I’d think you would have complete access to all Rhino API’s. I hope it’s not a fiefdom issue, but it happens.
7. Documentation.
Absolutely. Development for GH1 has slowed because I'm now working on GH2. We decided that GH1 is 'feature complete', basically to avoid feature creep. GH2 is a ground-up rewrite so it will take a long time until something is ready for testing. During this time, minor additions and of course bug fixes will be available for GH1, but on a much lower frequency.
Documentation is woefully inadequate at present. The primer is being updated (and the new version looks great), but for GH2 we're planning a completely new help system. People have been hired to provide the content. With a bit of luck and a lot of work this will be one of the main selling points of GH2.
It begs the question that I have to ask. When is GH1.0 scheduled to launch? And if you need another person to proofread the current draft of new primer.
patrick@girgen.com
I can’t believe wikipedia has an entry for feature creep. And I can’t believe you included it. It made me giggle. Thanks.
8. 2D-ness.
"I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen?"
I don't fully disagree. A lot of geometry is either flat or happens inside surfaces. The reason there's no shelling (I'm assuming that's what you meant, there are two Offset Surface components in GH) is because (a) it's a very new feature in Rhino and doesn't work too well yet and (b) as a result of that isn't available to plugins.
I believe it’s been helpful for me to have figured this out. I recently completed a GH course at a local Community College and have done a bunch of online tutorials. The first real project I decided to tackle has turned out to be one of the more difficult things to try. It’s the source of the questions I posted. (Thanks for pointing out that they were posted in the wrong spot. I re-posted to the discussions board.)
I just can't seem to figure out how to turn the voronoi into legitimate geometry. I've seen this exact question posted a few times, but it’s never been successfully answered. What I'm showing here is far more angular than I’m hoping for. The mesh is too fine for weaverbird to have much of an effect. And I haven't cracked re-meshing. Btw, in product design, meshes are to be avoided like the plague. Embracing them remains difficult.
As for offsetsurf, in Rhino, if you do an offsetsurf to a solid body, it executes it on all sides creating another neatly trimmed body thats either larger or smaller than the original. This is how every other app I know of works. GH’s offsetsurf creates a bunch of unjoined faces spaced away from the original brep. A common technique for 3D voronois (Yes, I hit the voronoi overuse easter egg) is to find the center of each cell and scale them by this center. If you think about it, this creates a different distance from the face of the scaled cell to the face of the original cell for every face. As I've mentioned, this project is giving me serious headaches.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback, I really do, but I want to be honest and open about my own plans and where they might conflict with your wishes. Grasshopper is being used far beyond the boundaries of what we expected and it's clear that there are major shortcomings that must be addressed before too long. We didn't get it right with the first version, I don't expect we'll get it completely right with the second version but if we can improve upon the -say- five biggest drawbacks (performance, documentation, organisation, plugin management and no mac version) I'll be a happy puppy.
--
David Rutten
Thank you for taking the time to reply David. Often we feel that posting such things is send it into the empty ether. I’m very glad that this was not the case.
And thank you for all of the work you've put into GH. If you found any of my input overly harsh or ill-mannered, I apologise. It was not my intent. I'm generally not the ranting sort. If I hadn't intended to provide possibly useful input, I wouldn't have written.
Cheers
Patrick Girgen
Ps. Any pointers on how to get a bit further on the above project would be greatly appreciated.
…
with the core McNeel team in Seattle for about 2 months tomorrow and I wanted to release this before I left. It's a bit rushed, clusters are definitely not as 'finished' as I'd like them to be, but there should be enough there for some good old customer feedback at least.
Just in case I horked something up, you can still download 0.7.0057 here.
Download 0.8.0001 from the usual location.
First a basic new features and bug list, then the warning section. If you don't read the warning section you forfeit any rights to complain about this new release.
● Added a new Cluster Object. This is very young code, expect big (quite possibly breaking) changes in the future.
● Added auto-panning to Drag Object and Draw Wire interactions.
● Added canvas curl UI for drag+drop options.
● Added default values to the Quad-Face and Tri-Face components.
● Added a Tree Split component for separating out branches.
● Drag+Drop with text content now creates a new Panel.
● Curve data can now convert from a Surface/Brep with a single closed edge loop.
● Added runtime message balloon feedback.
● VB and C# script components now update immediately when typehints are changed.
● VB and C# script components now update immediately when input parameter access is changed.
● MoveForward and MoveBackwards arrange options are now available.
● Added a Grasshopper Version field to the status bar.
● GraphMapper can now adjust intervals, points and vectors in addition to just numbers.
● Parameter disconnection menu items now highlight the connection in question on mouse-over.
○ The menu short-cuts for Find and Move Forward were both Ctrl+F. Find is now F3.
○ Any Undo operation would wreck the Redo stack, this no longer happens.
○ Fixed a bug with automatic tooltip resizing.
○ Fixed an erroneous "app" autocomplete member in the C# and VB script members.
○ Fixed a bug in the CurveCurve intersection SDK code that occured with overlaps.
○ Fixed a bug in the PointList display component with stale point data.
○ Fixed a nasty bug with stale document caches and undo/redo.
○ Custom Preview Meshes would always draw wires regardless of the Grasshopper view setting. This is fixed.
The Aforementioned Warning Section
This pertains mostly to clusters. At present there's no way yet to edit the contents of a cluster. You can make clusters from a selection by clicking on the toolbar cluster button (selected objects remain on the canvas, this will change), or by drag+dropping ghx files onto the canvas and selecting the Cluster Insert mode from behind the curl.
Clusters contents can be opened as new documents via the Cluster object menu, but this code is very icky still. You can edit cluster properties by double clicking on one.
It is entirely possible that clusters will change so much in the near future that old clusters might not read correctly from 0.8.0001 files. Do not use them yet on production work and always make backups.
That's it. Enjoy,
David
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 4:27pm on October 22, 2010
nts that I have found helpful and will be included in the next release, but you can try them now. They are online at https://github.com/fequalsf/Crystallon/tree/0972066e468f0a7a592ff4e7e88226028dcb029c/V2.1I have been interested in finding ways to save settings for different iterations of a design which can be baked into a rhino file and used again later. These tools I've made are for working with divisions of a surface.The first tool (Divide Surface) is for dividing a single surface using UV parameters and outputting a quad mesh. Simple enough. What makes this powerful is you can use that mesh with the "Morph Between Meshes" tool to create your voxels. So now you can morph between surfaces with the same number of divisions but with different parameters. The other nice thing about meshes is they are simple to work with and can be further modified with other plugins (such as kangaroo). They can be baked, manually edited in rhino and saved as STL or OBJ files to use again later. I will be updating all the tools eventually to output meshes.
The next tools are for creating those divisions. Any of the components that require a parameter input need a range of values from 0-1. The simplest way to do this is with the "Range" component. The default domain is 0-1 so you only need to give it a number of steps.
To make the range non-linear, there's a few components you can use. Graph mapper is the most common tool, but you could also use the gradient tool.
But these can be difficult to work with and quite limiting. Graph mapper has a limited set of graph types to work with (I tend to use Bezier) and the gradient tool makes a steep curve which cannot change. Also making small changes is difficult and saving a setting for later is not easy.
So the next tool I made is a curve plotter. This takes your range of number (X values) and your remapped numbers (Y values) and plots the points to either a polyline or interpolated curve. This way you can see the curve the gradient is making or bake out a graph mapper curve you want to use later.
The next tool I made is a curve graph mapper, so you can map numbers using any curve drawn on the XY plane. This gives you much more freedom than the graph mapper and is easier to make small adjustments. Then you can always make many iterations of a curve and go back to any of them saved in the rhino file. There are options to view tags with the values on the curve as well as a gradient preview.
If you take a look at the curve created by the gradient tool, you can see it is basically creating a Bezier curve from the handles on the gradient (position is X value, color is Y value). The problem with using it for division parameters is the tangency of the points is always in the X direction creating a nearly horizontal section in the curve. This will give you a series of the same values, which we don't want. The falloff of the curve is also quite steep with no way of adjusting it.
If you make a lot of divisions you will also notice stepping in the curve. This is because the gradient uses RGB colors which is only a range of whole number from 0-255. So you only have a total of 256 values from 0-1.
Yet there is something elegant and user friendly about Bezier curves which makes them nice for creating gradients. So the last tool I made is for creating a Bezier curve from points. All you need to do is input at least 2 points. The second input is the tangent length multiplier (which can be one value for all or one per span of the curve) and the third is the tangent rotation in radians (also either one value or one per span).
The values are shown on the curve and can be baked as text tags if you want to save them and use the same points and values later. Or you can just bake out the curve. This makes for a simple smooth curve that makes a nice gradient.
…