ts connectors and slots that allow CNC machining the facets and connectors for assembly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34OvgflJEmI
We developed this construction methodology earlier this year while working on a large scale parametric structure for Midburn, the Israeli Burning Man. While doing so I used grasshopper to generate the facets for the geometry, while a friend on the team (Matan Zohar) wrote a javascript app that translated the mesh into connectors and slots for CNC manufacturing. You can see more about the project here:
http://www.shlomimir.com/triped/
I wrote this component as an exercise in learning rhinoscript and python, with the purpose of bringing the functionality into the grasshopper workflow. It's now to the point where it is working for triangle and square welded meshes while outputting the connectors and slots as an unorganized list.
Questions and To Do List
1. I'm new to object oriented coding and functions, and basically just wrote the whole thing as a series of conditional loops with two dimensional arrays holding the data. Planning on restructuring this better, would love any tips.
2. Right now outputting the connectors and slots on the input mesh itself in 3D, planning on setting this up layed out on one plane to organize for cutting. I was wondering if there are any existing tools for this or if I need to do this manually.
3. Labeling connectors and slots. Is there anyway to output text from python that can be later baked into the rhino for labeling?…
hopper) and High Definition visualizations (V-Ray) and exploring its scientific innovations supporting the users' platform philosophical ideas.
SESSIONS: 5 sessions of 8 hours (40 hours total)
E-MAIL: educacion@chconsultores.net
REGISTRATION: (55) 56 62 57 93
TECHNICAL INFO: 044 (55) 31 22 71 83
INSTRUCTORS: Have past experience working at Gehry Technologies, and participated at studios with Eric Owen Moss and Tom Wiscombe at SCI-Arc (Southern California Institute of Architecture).
Day 1: Introduction to MAYA tools, 3D exercise start.
Day 2: Continue 3D exercise.
Day 3: Original 3D architecture design.
Day 4: Grasshopper optional application on 3D architecture design.
Day 5: V-Ray Application on 3D architecture design.
30 DAY TRIAL SOFTWARE DOWNLOAD:MAYA 2012: http://www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-maya/free-triaRHINO 4: http://s3.amazonaws.com/files.na.mcneel.com/rhino/4.0/2011-02-11/eval/rh40eval_en_20110211.exe3DS MAX 2010: http://www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-3ds-max/free-trialVRAY FOR 3DS MAX: http://www.vray.com/vray_for_3ds_max/demo/thankyou.shtml#thankyouPHOTOSHOP e ILLUSTRATOR: https://creative.adobe.com/apps?trial=PHSP&promoid=JZXPS
www.helenico.edu.mx
www.scifi-architecture.com/#!workshops/c1wua
LIKE US ON: www.facebook.com/scifiarchitecture
…
st shortest path. The guiding splines would work like a forcefield so that paths are "drawn" towards them with a user defined strength and radius of influence.Since each path is basically independent, it should be relatively straight forward to multithread. I downloaded the C# code for the pathfinding node and have to see if I'm up to it.
Would also be interesting to know how far away the first beta of a multithreaded GH 2 is.
I also had some hopes when "Fabric Engine" showed a demo of a Rhino exporter, since its "Canvas" is an extremely optimized node system that's fully multithreaded and optionally uses the GPU, which could be interesting to explore for some heavy lifting if they for instance would attach it to GH. But I guess it does not make much sense for them as a target.
Above image uses 20000 random points. In Softimage XSI ICE this would not be much, since it's nodes are fully multithreaded and optimized for huge numbers of particles and point deformation. In GH, with anything above 500 points, things get rather "meditative".
Illustrator takes up to half an hour after each and every change to colour, line style, blending mode etc. I have one even more complex file with over 3 GB size and there Illustrator (CS6 x64) goes into some kind of trance and after some hours of thinking moves on to some advanced psychotic, catatonic state to never fully return... ;-)So usually I run it in the background while doing something else...
I recently tried different other vector graphics apps (Inkscape, Affinity Designer, Xara) but they were even worse if they were able to open the files at all. Maybe I should give Corel a try too.
Cheers and thanks for your offer! Your work is a major inspiration for me while learning Grasshopper!
Tom…
precise) that unfortunately has more than one staff. This means that I pay the bills (unfortunate to the max). Practice is vertical meaning no Structural/HVAC etc services.
2. AEC Projects are made by teams. Period.
3. Teams are organized with some sort of hierarchy. Period.
4. On each team there's always one leader. Teams can being sampled in group teams - call them clusters (kinda like a List of List of ...)
5. All cluster leaders report to the supreme human being (yours truly). Leader heads are always on my disposal (it's fun to decapitate someone: I do this every Monday).
6. AEC projects are made with 1% idea(s) and 99% of what we call "sludge" (this is not my job: I'm the One , he he).
7. You can't steer any boat if you don't know each @@$#@ nut and bold. In the past there was a naive approach on that matter (ruined automotive companies, potato chip makers, software vendors, political systems, secret service agencies ... etc etc).
8. Efficiency is above all (even above tax-free cash).
9, You can't do ANY AEC real-life thing with what GH has to offer (nor Rhino is an AEC BIM app - it would never be). You simply use GH as a supplement to Generative Components (and/or as stand alone because it's good fun). There's nothing that GH does (I'm speaking solely for AEC as always) that can't being done with Generative Components.
10. I've done so fat 257 projects (a "bit" bigger than a house, he he). Let's say about 51427 drawings (master, master details, details) and 78956 lines of text (specs, cost estimations, space schedules, supplier lists, contracts, cats and 1 dog).
If you combine all the above you'll have the answer (i.e. why I use solely - if possible - code and not GH components). If you can't combine them I'm sorry.
PS: C# is the absolute standard (never judge a language as a "stand-alone" thingy).
best, Peter (Prince of Cynics)
…
file. A TSpline made thing in fact.
2. This atroci ... er ... hmm ... I mean unspeakable beauty uses an exo-skeletal load bearing structure hence is THAT big (BTW: Apparently nobody knows what thermal bridge is nor thermal expansion nor vapor condensation ... but these are "minor" details these holly blob days, he he).
3. 2 means that some nodes of that "grid" MUST "meet" floors in order to support them and (hopefully) withstand some seismic forces. BTW: A Richter scale 9 (for an hour) is all what this building actually needs (that's acid "humor").
4. The "smarter" way to do this is to spread "some" (i.e a lot) random points (Note: David's algo yields "evenly-spaced-points" within the limits of the possible) on the guide blob (a polysurface in fact).
5. Then ... you need some algo that tests proximity AND "adjusts" the Z in order to have some node points "co-planar" (Z) with the floors.
6. Then you triangulate all that stuff (the points, that is) using some decent Ball Pivot Algorithm (NOT Delauney) and you get a triangulated mesh that "engulfs" the guide blob. If you want some quads (as shown) this is also possible.
7. So you have edges ... i.e poly lines (per mesh face) and if you offset them ... you have "drilling" profiles that you must use against a second guide "thickened" blob for creating a continuously smooth exo-skeletal LBS (as shown). Of course Rhino (being a surface modeller) could require years to do this solid difference opp (or an eternity).
8. Rounding the "lips" of that LBS Brep is out of question with Rhino or GH (but it can been done very easily using other apps). Then you must "split" the Brep (in modules? in nodes + "rodes"? you tell me) in order to make it in real-life (what about forgetting all that?, he he).
9. Then, there's the glazing thingy that is made via quads meaning planarity. This is achievable with Kangaroo2 but is a bit tricky.
Moral: WHAT a gigantic pile of worms is this thread of yours...
more soon.
…
ake a network of lines (i.e. a graph) and make a Plankton Mesh, from which you can use Cytoskeleton to make a solid mesh (and then smooth it with Weaverbird).
Works with ngons (polygons with 3 or more sides). Other examples I found only worked with tris and quads.
Works on open or closed surfaces
While these examples start with a surface, you could start with a network of lines and make a patch surface
This is meant for 2D networks/surfaces. I haven't attempted filling a 3D volume. My guess is this wouldn't work as it would require a non-manifold mesh that Plankton wouldn't handle.
Note similar results could be achieved with the following:
TSplines
MeshDual (dual of a tri mesh, not as much freedom/control)
Working backwards, here is the GhPython script from Will Pearson that builds a Plankton Mesh from vertices and faces. The vertices are a list of 3D coordinates, the faces are a tree a lists, with each list containing the indices of vertices that form a closed loop. From Will, "Plankton only handles manifold meshes, i.e. meshes which have a front and a back. This orientation is determined by the "right-hand rule" i.e. if the vertices of a face are ordered counter-clockwise then the face normal will be out of the page/screen."
# V: list of Point3d # F: tree of int
import Grasshopper appdata = Grasshopper.Folders.DefaultAssemblyFolder
import clr clr.AddReferenceToFileAndPath(appdata + "Plankton.dll")
import Plankton
pmesh = Plankton.PlanktonMesh()
for pt in V: pmesh.Vertices.Add(pt.X, pt.Y, pt.Z)
for face in F.Branches: face = list(face)[:-1] pmesh.Faces.AddFace(face)
These vertices and faces are precisely the output from Starling. Starling takes in a list of Polylines which form the (properly oriented) face loops.
The polyline face loops can be generated...
Directly from Panels on a surface using LunchBox
Using any network of lines/curves on a surface (curves will need to be converted to polylines before Starling)
The latter was achieved using the Surface Split command, then converting the face edges (converted to curves) into polyline loops to represent faces.
…
). It deals with the potential possibility to port GH into AEC fields (real-life AEC fields, nothing to do with academic thinking). The bad news are that the smart AEC sector is occupied solely by Bentley/GenComp – expect soon Revit/Dynamo as well (not to mention CATIA). The good news are that there’s millions of designers/engineers/industrial designers out there who could be interested for a 3rd alternative.
Intro: Well, in the old days (when men had mustache and muttonchops) AEC design performed in a nice top-to-bottom sequence (kinda like a vector) : the Big Man (aka The Brain) did some sketches (with crayons) and the rest (known as the “others”) struggled to make The Idea a reality. Today things are different, mind. Or they should be different. Or may be different. Or whatever. The big easy:For a zillion o reasons (AEC matures, PLM, cost, outsourcing, sustainable engineering…add several more) this vector like process of the past is like a Brown motion these days: Right down the moment that you (or your team) “sketch” The Big Idea … another team design simultaneously (i.e. in parallel) the components (parts) that compose the whole. This is the so called bottom-to-top design mentality. So the whole and the parts meet in some "middle point" instead the later being dictated by the former. In quite a few occasions parts dictate the whole (cost, cost and cost being the main reasons). The more a design is contemporary the more this bottom-to-top thing plays a critical role. Ignore it and have a very big time (sooner or later).The bad news:If you accept the above…well GH – at present phase - is not ready for contemporary AEC work. At.All.3 Main reasons for that:1.You can’t use parametric parts (i.e. nested blocks to speak Rhino language) into a given definition (in this case attached : truss nodes, connection flanges, mount plates, cable tensioners, planar glazing components, roof skin components…etc etc). This is obviously a Rhino domain.2.You can’t bake a given solution in such a way that the Rhino file is structured (i.e. assemblies of nested blocks). Or you can do it theoretically writing some VB/C code – but the core of the matter is that corresponding components are MIA. That means that you can’t export anything useful actually into established AEC oriented apps and/or established MCAD apps (for doing/calculating the parts for real-life production).3.The GH process can’t being interrupted. Imagine defining, say, a building “envelope” in GH and then …er…use Evolute tools in order to optimize things (say quad planarization and the likes). Then …continue in GH for more detailed work. Then design the parts as in 1 above. Then back to Evolute. Then back to GH.So…if anyone is interested I would be glad to start the mother of all debates and/or some kind of crusade (GH for President, that is).PS: This definition is a WIP thing – more refined stuff to follow (in particular a complex canopy tubes pre-stress system).
PS: Tree8 components are used sporadically.
PS: Use Saved Views
May the Dark Force be with us.Best, Peter …
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).…
ts (other than Kangaroo - if required). Anyway notify if you want some taste of them (but they are a bit "chaotic" : too many parameters etc etc ...). Warning: Almost all are written with MCAD apps in mind: GH is used SOLELY as a graphical editor/topology solver and just makes the simplest instance definitions possible in order to send them (via STEP) to some MCAD (Frank G uses CATIA/Digital Project as you may probably know, CATIA is my favorite toy as well) for actually designing the components and composing the whole.
2. "Equality" in modules (panels/glass/lexan) it's not an issue (other than aesthetics). I mean cost wise since modules are prepared via CNC these days. I wouldn't suggest to waste your time with "equality" puzzles and completely ignoring the big picture (real-life) that is FAR and AWAY from aesthetics. I mean: assume that I of someone else or Daniel can "equalize" things (up to a point): Is this sufficient for designing a similar real-life solution? In plain English: don't get occupied by the tree and ignore the forest.
3. As regards the frame in most of cases some MERO type of modular system is used: either a "flat" dome-like arrangement or a classic spaceframe or a hybrid system [push: tubes, pull: cables]. Hybrids are the most WOW (and costly) for obvious reasons. When properly done (and combined with a planar glazing system) THIS is the star of the show.
4. As regards the skin we use either "hinged" custom stuctural/semi structural aluminum extrusions (they can adapt to different dihedrals up to a point) or classic custom planar SS16L systems that also can adapt to dihedrals. A custom planar glazing solution is hideously expensive, mind (say: 1K Euros per m2).
5. Smart Glass tech (changes light transmission properties under the application of voltage) is gradually penetrating the market especially in future bespoke designs.
So in a nutshell: these are "pro" territory - if I may use the term, thus I don't expect to find ANY similar "turn-key" solution in the very same sense that you can't find a tensile membrane turn-key solution.
Meaning that practices that can do it ... er ... they keep the cookies for themselves. …
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).…