ails.
Some word about the mesh... (see Image_01)
I took a flat 4 points NURBS surface as imput (very easy, it defines the total area of my pavilion) and some points (that defines the contact with the ground).
Then I extracted a grid of points from the NURBS (Surface_Util_Divide surface) and compared 'em with the contol points, in order to associate to each grid's point its own attractor (Vector_Point_Closest Point).
Than I moved the points down. I used the distance from each point to its attractor (inverted) as amplitude for the vector of the movement, in order to say: the nearer you are to the control point, the more intense your movement will be. During this operation I've passed the distances' data list into a graph mapper (Params_Special_Graph Mapper), in order to regulate in a very intuitive and interactive way the shaping of my canopy.
At the end of the process I asked GH for a simple Delaunay mesh (Mesh_Triangulation_Delaunay Mesh). It's a very cool command, I believe!!!
Ok, now some word about the component, it's design and it's repetition/adaptation to the mesh...
(see Image_02)
I took the mesh and extracted components on first and faces's information on second. Then I selected and separated the vertexes (1°, 2°, 3°) of each triangular face into threee well defined list.
Then I re-created the triangles' edges. Please pay attention because it's not the same if you use output information from Delaunay components, because here we need a justapposition of edges where triangles touches each others.
After this work I joined the edges and found their centroid. At the same time I found the mid point of each edge.
Now the component... (see Image_03)
It' a little bit longer to describe: I'll try to be synthetic.
Substantially it is a loft from a curve to a point, repeated three times for each triangle (Surface_Freeform_Extrude Point). The point is an elevation of the centroid of the triangle (you can choose if the exstrusion has a single height or it's related to an attractor. In my case it was fixed). The curve is combination of things. There's an arch, which starts on the edge (there's an offset from the corner) end terminates on the same edge (on the other side, obviously). While it's generation the arch passes through a third point which belong to another segment. This last connects the mid point of the original edge (base triangle) with the centroid. The result is a kind of polyline, with two segments and an arch. If you go back to the image of the component that I posted probably you'll understand what I'm saying better than with the definition.
The posit…
o it would cause troubles with unfolding and fabricating... that's why I used Extrude point component- it will give you similar result, but all surfaces are planar.. you can control extrusion direction with a tip point in rhino...
2)I changed tagging so every tube has 8 points form list A and 8 points from list B... first number of tag is a number of point within one tube... last number of the tag is order of tubes (I draw a little picture in GH, hope you'll understand)...I think original way of tagging wasn't really usefull.. but you can change tagging by yourself...
3) the definition is really messy, sorry about that, but it's just quite complicated task...
4)if you find some incorrect order of tagging, use the slider that controls Shift List component ... it will shift tagging..
5) if you won't be using this definition or find some better way, pleeeease don't tell me - I'll jump out the window :D ... it took me whole day to make it work :D
6)I can't guarantee you anything- I hope it works, but if not - at least I tried... so check everything (especially order of tags and points) twice before you fabricate it.. or print few tubes and make them paper first..
7)there is a part of original definition, that is not useful anymore.. I left it there, but you can delete it (I called it "UNUSED PARTS OF ORIGINAL FILE")
..good luck
Dimitri…
ou mean by 'Activate Direct Rhino Modifying'. Perhaps you could expand?
I like the idea of mixing and matching script and 'direct' modeling. There seems to be a lot of potential platforms for this:
1. Implict History: Is there a way for GH to read the direct modifications (with History activated) and translate this as a component (or cluster of components?)? IH seems to record the UI events and the associated elements. GH would need to write as well as read the IH info, in order to preserve as much flexibility downstream as possible. You mentioned Houdini. H seems to record all 'implicit' or direct mods, done via the CAD mouse-based UI, in its network graph. Maybe, this should be captured in the IH cluster/component mentioned above.
2. RhinoParametrics: RP has done a lot of work to intercept and translate Rhino commands into its version of Implicit History. Seems to be centred on points, which makes sense as so much of the traditional 'dumb' way of inputing CAD info is based on mouse clicks on screen (points) predicated by commands, active locks, workplanes etc.
3. Gumball: Rubberduck's use of the new Gumball tool to capture 'direct' modeling inputs thru the Gumball points to a good source for capturing this kind or input, that is related to the 'macro recorder' approach taken by RP and IH.
4. The new Geom Cache component seems to be able to preserve a lot of info about the baked object. There may be even a way to read tagged info generated both GH baked with the "reference" object, and external to GH (by IH, the gumball or even third party apps like RP).
Would be interesting to know what kind of info is 'preserved'. Houdini seems to have a pretty consistent approach to geometric data, that seems to allow parallel NURBS/subD/mesh versions of the geometry. It also seems to have a coherent heirarchical approach to vertices/edges/loops/faces etc that allows the subelements to be arbitarily grouped for 'direct' modeling, and still be part of a procedural script.
I guess the polygon / mesh approach to geometry lends itself to this. If all the procedural commands/components all understand mesh geometry in either vertex, edge, face format, then combining direct and script modeling is doable in transparent way?
In your example above, the Geo Cache node 'flattens' the object to dumb geometry which is manipulated using Rhino, then used as a Reference object, in the next section of the graph. I guess there is nothing to stop the follow on components reading the precedenting graph for parameters, for additional intelligence?
Does GH 'get' or 'put' parameter data?
…
hopper and the GH file.
2. There is a drop down menu at the top of Pure Data that reads "Media". Click on "Midi". If your device connection is working, you should see it show up as an option. Set the device to MIDI in. You don't really need to set a MIDI out unless you are planning to send messages back to the device (not sure why you would want to).
3. The boxes labeled "ctlin" with a number are the Control Change in's. In Pure Data go to the "Edit" menu and click on "Edit Mode". Click on one of the "ctlin #" boxes and change the number to match the Control Change number of your physical controller. Mine starts with 5 in the upper right and goes to 65. Each control change number shows up on the display window of my device when I use it which made it easy.
4. Continue this process for all your controls. Delete the unneccesary "ctlin #" boxes by selecting them with a fence and clicking "delete". When you hover over one of the wires you should see and "x". Press the "backspace" key to delete it.
5. Now go down to the "pack f f f ..." box. There should be as many "f" or "floats" in that box as there are you number of controllers. Delete the remaining "f".
6. Next look at the box below that reads "send /0...". Make sure to keep the "/0". If you delete the "/" it will crash Grasshopper. Change the number "5" to match your first control change number. Leave the $numbers alone. You'll want to keep them sequential. Continue change the control change numbers to match all of yours. The $numbers should match the order in which you wired each controller to the "pack f f f..." box.
7. For testing purposes hover over the input on the upper let of the "print" box and connect it to the out of the "send" box. If everything is mapped correctly, working properly, and you go back to the "main" PD window you should see a list of all controllers will a value (0 to 127) next to it. As you turn a knob, the value next to the control change number will increase from 0 to 127. This will give you a good indication of whether or not everything is working and if you mapped it correctly.
8. Click on the "connect OSC" box. You might need to exit out of "edit mode" and back to "performance" mode in the PD canvas.
9. Go To Grasshopper. If everything is working you should see the Panel read "new message" when you turn a knob. At this point it should be pretty obvious how to modify the Grasshopper components. I've tried to keep everything as consistent as possible. Since I filtered out the "/0", the "explode data treat" component starts at 0, the numbers are shifted down by 1.
I just left the IP address, etc. alone on the gHowl UDP component. Just make sure the "port number" matches the OSC port number on the send in Pure Data. If you crash, you may need to choose a new number.
Hope that helps. Let me know if you have any questions. If your computer is not recognizing your midi controller, you may need to install "Midiyoke". I did at first, but it turns out I didn't need it after all.
Best of luck.
…
sophy though, I have a rudimentary grasp of the Ancient Greeks and modern schools of thought such as Existentialism and Pragmatism, but there is certainly no depth in my understanding. However here the same rule applies. You can quote philosophy all you want, but unless you understand that which you're channelling you can be -at best- accidentally correct.
According to you, these are all vital characteristics:
Aesthetic judgement
Intuition about spatial effectiveness
Knowledge of construction materials & assembly systems
Consideration of performance-driven design properties
Mad synthesizing skillz
[1] and [2] are pretty much worthless, especially when we're dealing with students. Aesthetic judgement is not something that can be wrong or right. You can hone your aesthetic skills but you cannot cultivate better tastes. Intuition is also problematic. It's basically a stand-in for argumentation. Instead of saying "these buildings have to have 20 meters apart because of wind/sound/human perception/human psychology/light/shadow/etc. etc" is a far stronger statement than "these buildings have to have 20 meters apart because of my feelings". Who are you to be trusted? If you have a long and distinguished career backing you up, maybe your opinions carry some weight, but until that point you'd better be prepared to justify your decisions with cold hard logic and data.
[3] is certainly important for certain jobs in construction, but it can be argued that implementation details are not necessarily central to a design. One can design a good computer interface without having to be able to program, and certainly without being familiar with all the idiosyncrasies of a particular programming language. Conversely, one can design an excellent space without knowing exactly how strong certain atomic bonds are. If what you design is physically impossible, then obviously something has to change, but it doesn't mean that the design as an abstract idea was bad. Of course on the other hand one can argue that designing impossible things is not doing anyone any favours. I'm not exactly certain where I stand on this issue, probably comfortably in the middle; YES, students need to learn about what can be build in the physical world, but NO that is not part of design training.
I'm not quite sure what [4] means.
[5] is true for a lot of professions, not just Architects. I would concede that architects probably have more to take into account than most designers and that it is indeed an important skill to have.
I would say that -especially for students, who have little experience- an incredibly important skill to be able to ask yourself "why am I doing this?" about pretty much every decision you make. Basically you need to get very comfortable applying the Socratic method to everything you do.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 11:03am on August 14, 2013
ctor. I do not dispose of any IGH_Goo instances, mostly because I have no idea when an instance is truly no longer needed. If any of your fields need to be disposed, you may have to implement a destructor, but I have no experience with this.
2) should I pass those classes to other parameters by DA(0, MotherClass.Duplicate?) or it is already there by GH_Goo ?
IGH_Goo is not duplicated by default. If you use DA.GetData() and ask for IGH_Goo types, you'll get a reference to the same instance as exists. Thus, if you take in an instance of your type, modify and output it, you should duplicate it yourself. But you only need to do this if you change the state of an instance.
MyGooType data = null;
if (!DA.GetData(0, ref data)) return;
data = data.Duplicate() as MyGooType;
data.Property = newValue;
DA.SetData(0, data);
3) should I create ChildClass and MotherClass in SolveInstance, or create it once as a component's field and then change theirs properties and pass it to DA (as duplicate ?)....
It's almost always better to use variables with the lowest possible scope. So method variables are preferred to class variables, class variables are preferred to static variables.
4) if I create those classes in SolveInstance, is it necessary to Dispose them there ?
NO! Do not dispose of instances that are passed on to output parameters. Disposing objects typically makes them invalid, so if you share instances with anyone else, you should not dispose them or the other code may well crash. However I don't think your types need to be disposable so this is a moot point now.
In general, if you're dealing with disposable types, and the instances aren't shared, then you dispose them as quickly as possible. But if they are shared it's a lot more complicated.
5) finally - maybe it would be better if MotherClass inherits the ChildClass ?
Maybe. Not necessarily. Depends on the classes. …
Added by David Rutten at 12:08pm on December 31, 2014
size component supported only ground PV panels and angled roof PV panels.
Download the newest PV SWH system size component from here (Click on "View Raw" to download it. Then move the downloaded .ghuser file to File->Special Folders->User Objects Folder, an confirm to overwrite it with previously located one).
Just a few opinions on the project you are currently working on:This kind of fixed, non-transparent (overhang) PV panels attached to a building facade are vert convenient for locations with higher latitudes.The reason for this is because they (fixed overhang PV panels) are dimensioned according to the sun position at summer solstice. Elevation angles on summer solstice at higher latitude locations are lower, than those of lower latitude locations.Due to Incheon's low latitude (37), you will get rather short length of the PV panels* : less than 10 centimeters (0.097 meters in the attached .gh file below). As you have mentioned, Galapagos needs to be used too.I will just mention some of the good and bad ways in which the upper issue could be somewhat avoided:1) Increasing the vertical distance between PV panels (PV panels appear above every second window).2) Increase the tilt angle. This will increase the length of PV panels also, but will decrease the final annual AC energy output.An example of this solution has been applied at FKI building in Seoul (latitude: 37N):I already did some tests (with tilt angles: 40, 45, 55) and this does not seem like a good solution, though.3) Shrinking the "sun window" by using the minimalSpacingPeriod_ input. In Photovoltaics, a planner is suppose to make the 9h to 15h part of the sun window free of any obstructions. If you try to decrease the "sun window" to 10 to 14h, the length of your PV panels will increase. You can try to experiment a little bit with this (set your minimalSpacingPeriod_ to 21th of June 10 to 14hours). In general, shrinking the sun window on summer solstice is not a good principle during planning.4) Using tracking PV panels, not fixed ones. But Ladybug Photovoltaics components do not support this kind of PV systems. They only support fixed ones.I would personally go with the first option. You can also experiment with the second and third one.Comment back if you have any other questions.-----------------------* By "length of the PV panels" I mean the: tiltedArrayHeight_ input of the PV SWH system size component.…
On the other hand ... well ... we can pretend that this could be some sort of add-on dedicated for broken pieces, (and nerves if loops = a big number) he he.
Anyway:
1. If you enable the history (the yellow things) you can watch the recursion working: get a donor box and "slice" it in 2 (either via an "orthogonal" plane [the fast boxes] or a random one [the slow breps]). Then get each one and repeat until the desired "depth" of "slices" is achieved (the loops, that is). Pure recursion in terms of programming (a function does something, yields results and then calls itself to further process each result).
Double click on the C# to see the code (but don't change anything). For the record this is the function that does the main job (spot the fact that if it's not terminated it calls itself [last line]):
2. The x, xy, xyz options restrict the random plane (actually in the boxes case there's another technique used (Intervals) but never mind). For instance (case random breps) the slicing plane is defined at the brep center and using a random direction:
Vector3d dir = new Vector3d(rand.NextDouble(-1,1), rand.NextDouble(-1,1), rand.NextDouble(-1,1));
If the 3rd value is 0 then the plane's YAxis is parallel to Plane.WorldXY.ZAxis.
3. Now if the "slicing" thing was a random polyline at a random plane the pieces could be far more "elaborated" (and/or "naturally looking") ... but the thing with programming is to know(?) where/when to stop.
4. This approach could use any donor Brep (a blob for instance) or a Brep List. Notify if you want to add such an option.
5. Added some lines more for an option that allows to sample the pieces (due to the last loop) in an automated flat "layout" (it's a bit more complex than it appears on first sight).
6. The x,y restriction mode now affects the random slices as well. See what I mean:
and the same restriction using boxes:
Truth is that all that freaky stuff could be helpful for you if you had serious plans to learn C# (not something achievable without pain and tears aplenty).
best…
e point in each pair that has the lowest Z value (then later the highest Z)... The problem is the intersections are not returned sorted by Z, sometimes the lower point is first in the list, sometimes last. So I need to sort those pairs of points by Z value.I noticed the sort points component does not have any inputs for sort criteria... RhinoScript SortPoints allows you to sort by:
blnOrder
Optional. Number. The component sort order, where:
Value
Component Sort Order
0 (default)
X, Y, Z
1
X, Z, Y
2
Y, X, Z
3
Y, Z, X
4
Z, X, Y
5
Z, Y, X
Will we get something like this in GH? For now I think I can manage to analyze the Z for each and re-order the points, but a more comprehensive point sorting tool might be nice... no? Or did I miss something obvious? --Thx, --Mitch…