mers considering extreme sports reject mainstream retailers and like to check out small stores rather of at chains plus malls. Several smaller retailers discuss trends in sports shoe sales. http://skateszone.com/
Though athletic shoes and sports stores and from doorways retailers have reported somewhat uptick in footwear sales due to the increase in extreme sports, the particular beneficiaries inside the trend are independent surf and skate niche stores.
Some West Coast surf and skate shops stated teenagers and even more youthful Generation Xers are not only rejecting traditional sports, but they're also shunning mainstream retailers and malls meant for smaller niche shops transporting hard-to-come-by brands.
Eddie Miyoshi, district manager at Atomic Garage, a 3-store chain situated in Gardena, Calif., stated the soaring recognition of skateboard footwear has boosted the retailer's total footwear business 20-thirty percent this year, rather of '95.
Skate footwear presently represent 80-90 % of Atomic Garage's shoe sales, while couple of years back, Dr. Martens and Timberland drove the retailer's footwear business.
Like many retailers, Miyoshi pointed to Airwalk since the trend's catalyst.
However, if Airwalk broadened its distribution to larger chains, which are frequently located in malls, only a few skate shoe customers adopted. Rather, many youthful males have switched for your skate shops for additional elusive brands like Etnies, Duffs, and Electricity Footwear by Circus. By refusing to market bigger retailers or sports stores, these brands are increasing their cachet among youthful consumers.
"Kids don't want stuff which have been within the shops,In . Miyoshi added.
Searching ahead, Miyoshi forecasted skate shoe sales will remain strong through spring '97 provided "the [hot] vendors don't auction other [non-particularly shop] retailers."
"Skaters and non-skaters are rebelling against mainstream retailers so on to surf and skate shops for many looks," echoed Mark Richards, co-online sources Val Surf, a 3-store chain situated in North Hollywood, Calif. Soaring sales of skate footwear have driven total footwear receipts up 25 percent this year rather of '95.
"The quantity of that increase might be connected while using exposure of maximum games? I am unsure. [Skate footwear] may also be actually the think about the moment,In . Richards acknowledged. And in relation to getting this right look, youthful customers can be very picky.
"Skateboard footwear is a huge category for people, but we're not able to own the brands, Etnies, Duffs, Electricity and Nice, simply because they won't sell us," stated Mark Anderson, buyer at Chick's Sports, a six-store chain in Covina, Calif. "We have people coming every single day requesting them." Consequently, skate footwear have consistently ongoing to obtain about 5 % of Chick's overall footwear business. http://skateszone.com/the-top-8-best-skateboards-for-beginners-reviews-2017/
Nonetheless, some outdoors, niche sports and sports retailers are noting the growing recognition and coverage of maximum sports will receive a modest impact on footwear sales. Trailrunning footwear and approach/outdoors crosstrainers will be the two groups benefiting the very best inside the recognition. Like the skate shoe business, some retailers realize that styling instead of function frequently drives sales of individuals footwear.
"At this time the merchandise is a lot more visual than function," stated Chet James, gm of Super Jock 'N Jill, Dallas, speaking about trailrunning footwear. Still, James noted the current hype over adventure sports helps draw more customer traffic. "The marketing campaigns and media help bring growing figures of people in, nonetheless they frequently occasions day an issue that increases results on their own account,Inch he conceded.
John Wilkinson, executive vp inside the 85-store chain Track 'N Trail, Eldorado Hillsides, Calif., stated the shop has "seen some activity in approach footwear," but he requested the amount of consumers depend in it commercially sport. And, instead of accelerating total footwear business, Wilkinson speculated elevated sales of approach footwear and trailrunners are gnawing away at traditional hiking shoe and boot volume.
But Dan Bazinet, president of Overland Exchanging, a 34-store chain situated in Westford, Mass., believes the company-new looks have breathed existence for the wilting hiking boot category. "[Approach-type footwear] don't represent the lion's participate the hiking market, nonetheless they have elevated the hiking business and provided us extra sales," Bazinet stated.
He designated Timberland's Treeline Series and Rockport's Leadville line as strong performers. Unsurprisingly, he noted the company-new looks are attractive to youthful consumer base than traditional hikers.
For that month of June, sales of men's hikers were up 49 percent at Overland, rather of June '95, while sales of women's hikers were up 17 % for that month. Bazinet also attributed elevated sales that shops walked inside the hiking business, departing that business for that specialists.
Some retailers draw a good example concerning the hiking boom of two yrs ago combined with the current extreme sport phenomenon. "Plenty of bigger chains will get a specific percent in the industry while [extreme] sports remain a fad because they are selling cost-point type gear," described Steven Carre, assistant hard goods buyer at Adventure 16, a six-store chain situated in Hillcrest.
"However individuals [true enthusiasts] will say `we need real gear' and may shown up at us. That will help us after a while. What Size Skateboard good for an 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 year old
…
mpiled. The six potential sources are:
Primitive types such as Booleans, Integers, Colors, Strings, etc. Grasshopper uses these types itself a lot.
Other .NET Framework types such as System.Drawing.PointF or System.Collections.Generic.HashSet<T>. Grasshopper does not use these types to during component <-> component communication, but someone else might.
RhinoCommon types such as Point3d, Circle, Plane, Brep, Curve etc. Many of these are used natively, but certainly not all of them.
Types defined in Grasshopper itself.
Types defined in plug-ins for Grasshopper.
Types defined in VB/C#/Python scripts that run inside Grasshopper.
Although clearly some of these are known to the developer during the time of writing, not all of them can be. Yet Grasshopper still needs to be able to interpret and use types it may know nothing about. Some of the things Grasshopper needs to be able to do with data of any type are:
Convert it to text so tooltips and panels can be populated with useful descriptions of data.
Convert it to and from other types.
Duplicate data so we can change it without affecting the original.
Test data for validity.
Save types to *.gh files and load them back in. (note: this works especially poorly at the moment.)
Preview geometric types in the viewport.
Bake geometric types to the Rhino document.
Transform geometric types.
Calculate bounding boxes of geometric types.
Be able to store null states of each type.
To overcome the problem of (A) needing to do so many things while (B) knowing nothing about the types in advance an interface is defined in the Grasshopper SDK and all data which is stored inside parameters must implement this interface. This allows GH to do the things from the second list to all the types from the first list.
The IGH_Goo interface is is usually nothing more than a wrapper around the actual data which provides a bunch of functionality for whatever it wraps. For example take the primitive Boolean (or bool in C#). It's a structure so it can never be null, and it can only exist in either a true or a false state.
GH uses booleans a lot so it provides an IGH_Goo implementation for Boolean. This wrapper class tells GH that a boolean value can be converted into an integer (false -> 0, true -> 1), into a colour (false -> black, true -> white), into a string (false -> "false", true -> "true) and so on. The wrapper class also knows how to write and read boolean values to and from *.gh files, and because we're now dealing with a wrapper class we can have null instances in a collection of boolean values. The wrapper doesn't tell GH how to preview or bake booleans, because booleans are not a geometric type of data.
Because so many data types are not in any way geometric, there is a second interface called IGH_GeometricGoo which extends IGH_Goo with stuff like transforming, bounding-boxing etc.
Almost always component developers and scripters can ignore any of the IGH_Goo types, because they are mostly used for internal bookkeeping. However sometimes a developer will either want to access the functionality that goo provides or they wish to inject a new, previously unknown type of data into a Grasshopper file. In these cases some knowledge of IGH_Goo and its derived interface and classes is required.…
Added by David Rutten at 10:29am on August 11, 2016
tions or components.
Participants will learn concepts of object oriented programming and essential syntax of C# to endeavour into personally extending cad toolsets. The workshop will focus on introducing the .NET language C# and the Software Development Kit (SDK) RhinoCommon.
Topics
- use of Script Component within Grasshopper
- explanation to the .NET Framework
- introduction to RhinoCommon SDK
- basics of imperative / object-oriented programming
- data types, operators, properties
- variables, arrays, lists, enumerations
- methods
- objects, classes
- control structures: conditional statements (if, else, switch)
- control structures: loops (for, foreach, while, do)
- walk-through iterative und recursive code-samples
- use of RhinoCommon Geometry class library: creation, sorting, editing of Geometry (Points, Vectors, Curves, Surfaces)
- adding (baking) geometry to the active Rhino 3DM Document, including attributes (Name, Layer, Colors etc.)
- introduction to the Integrated Development Environment MS Visual Studio Express Edition
- compiling code to dll/gha files (plug-ins) / making your own Grasshopper custom components
Grasshopper wird auf der .NET Softwareplattform entwickelt, und kann ebenso wie das CAD Programm Rhinoceros mit "RhinoCommon", einem Software Development Kit, erweitert werden.
Dieser Kurs richtet sich an Designer, Architekten, Ingenieure und Techniker, welche mit dem grafischen Algorithmus-Modellierer "Grasshopper3d" sowie dem CAD-Programm "Rhinoceros" bereits vertraut sind und einen Einstieg in die Programmierung von Geometrie erlernen möchten.
Der Kurs Grasshopper II folgende Grundlagen:
Kennenlernen der Script Componente
Erläuterung zum .NET Framework
Einführung in RhinoCommon SDK
Grundlagen d. imperativen / objektorientierten Programmierung
Datentypen, Operatoren, Eigenschaften
Variablen, Reihen, Listen, Aufzählungen
Methoden
Objekte und Klassen
Kontrollstrukturen: Bedingte Ausführung, Schleifen
praxisnahe iterative und rekursive Code-Beispiele für generatives Design unter Verwendung der RhinoCommon Geometrie Klassenbibiliothek - Punkt- und Vektorgeometrie erstellen, sortieren, bearbeiten, Flächen und Netze erstellen - Geometrie in das Rhino 3DM Dokument baken, einschließlich Attribute (Name, Layer, Color)
Einführung in die Entwicklungsumgebung MS Visual Studio Express Edition
Kompilieren von Programmerweiterungen (plug-ins) als Komponenten (custom components)
Details, Anmeldung:
www.vhs-stuttgart.de
Trainer Peter Mehrtens
Kursdauer: 3 Tage x 8 h
Freitag, 21.02.2014, 9:00-17:00 Uhr Samstag, 22.02.2014, 9:00-17:00 Uhr Sonntag, 23.02.2014, 9:00-17:00 Uhr Ort: VHS Stuttgart, Fritz-Elsas-Str. 46/48
Teilnahmegebühr 510,00 €…
ssibili e facili da usare. Il corso parte dalle basi della programmazione di arduino fino ad arrivare all’interazione tra un oggetto fisico ed un imput informativo. tutor: Gianpiero Picerno Ceraso
Programma: I giorno Introduzione al Phisical Computing, input digitali e analogici, le basi del linguaggio di programmazione, esempi applicativi; led, pulsanti, fotorestistenze, servo motore, sensore di temperatura, di flessione, sensori di movimento, potenziometri.
II giorno Arduino ethernet, uso di un relè per carichi elevati, accelerometro, introduzione a Processing, interazione di Arduino e Processing, Introduzione a Grassoppher e Firefly e interazione con Arduino.
orario corso: 10:00 – 13:00 e 14:00 – 17:00 (pausa pranzo 13:00 – 14:00) costo: 150€ + IVA deadline: 13 marzo numero minimo di partecipanti: 3
Per iscrizioni scrivi a info@medaarch.com specificando nome, cognome, mail, recapito telefonico e il nome del corso al quali sei interessato. In seguito all’invio del modulo di pre-iscrizione, i partecipanti riceveranno una mail contenente tutte le specifiche di pagamento.
Per seguire il cluster su Arduino è necessario installare il software Arduino 1.0.5 al seguente linkhttp://arduino.cc/en/Main/Software#.Ux3hQj95MYE facendo attenzione a scaricare quello relativo al proprio sistema operativo, Windows 32 o 64 e Mac OS.
Software necessari solo per una parte del corso: Processing 2.1.1 https://processing.org/download/?processing
Rhino 5 http://www.rhino3d.com/it/download Grasshopper for Rhino5http://www.grasshopper3d.com/page/download-1Firefly http://fireflyexperiments.com/
Il cluster rientra in un fitto calendario di attività formative organizzate dalla Medaarch per lanno 2013-2014.…
as the design table? I think this could be 'drawn' and constrained in Inventor in a lot less time. I know the GH model would have a lot of flexibility, but in this case, what can you do with it that wasn't provided by an Inventor model?
Only the 27 lines mentioned were modeled in Rhino, the rest is modeled with GH.
The 5 hrs involved thinking about the approach, defining vertical lines, tilts, elevations, pitch of the roof, intersections.
Once I had decided what my approach would be, and tested the logic with those first lines, points and data path arrangements, it only took one more hour to get to this:
Which is actually quite fast, compared to MCAD workflows.
If you already have components (columns, beams, etc.) modeled and ready to drop into a project, of course it is lightning fast to model simple projects like this example.
I am not as much interested in those situations, because improving efficiency is straightforward and obvious.
I'm more interested in situations where there are no pre-defined families of objects, in which case you need to start from scratch.
The GH model I'm showing is modeled from scratch, except for the 27 lines in Rhino.
Here's one obvious advantage to modeling with GH, once the definition is set-up, it's virtually effortless to change inputs and alter the overall design. Here's an example, lets say we wanted to extend the roof 3 more units, curling away from the original direction.
Plan view before:
And after:
An MCAD app will also allow you to do this, as long as the location of additional elements follows the existing geometric method of definition. What happens if you want completely change the way you locate columns, roof slope, intersection points?
In MCAD, you'll need to re-model the underlying geometry, which will take the same effort as the first round. In GH, this process is not only much faster, it's open to algorithmic approaches, galapagos, etc. and it just takes some simple re-wiring to have all down-stream elements associate themselves to this new geoemtric definition.
For instance, here's the same definition applied to two curves, which are divided in GH, the resulting points are used as a starting point for lines directed at normal from curves.
This is not so easy to do in MCAD.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 7:55pm on February 24, 2011
use I don't agree with the practice of using site EUI as a metric to evaluate the thermodynamic performance, environmental impact, or monetary value of a building. I disagree with this practice for the same reason that there are no "totalThermalLoad" and "thermalLoadBalance" for simulations run with full HVAC. I can summarize these reasons in the following way:
When we run a simulation with ideal air loads, the heating/cooling values we get are THERMAL ENERGY that is directly added to or removed from the zone. In this way, we can draw a rough parallel between these two types of energy since they are are generally of a similar type and quality. As such, I am ok with adding them together to get total thermal load or subtracting them to get a sense of thermal load balance.
However, when we run a simulation will full HVAC, the heating/cooling values that we get are usually HEATING FUEL ENERGY and ELECTRICITY respectively. Fuel energy and electricity are fundamentally two different types and qualities of energy. To cite the second law of thermodynamics, the exergy (or the capacity to do work) of electricity is much greater than that of fuel. This is evident in the fact that, to produce a given unit of electricity, I often have to burn at least 3 units of fuel energy (though this can be much more for inefficient plants). With each step in a power plant - making steam, turning a turbine, turning a generator - there are significant energy losses. This difference in exergy is also evident in the fact that there are so many more things that I can do directly with a unit of electricity than I can do with the same unit of fuel energy. I can use electricity to directly refrigerate, produce light energy or power a motor just as easily as I can use to to cook, produce hot water, or heat a space. While I can cook, make hot water, or heat a space directly with fuel energy, refrigeration and lighting are much more difficult. For this reason, I do not feel comfortable adding electricity and fuel together either in the totalThermalLoad output or in a site EUI metric.
Still, the use of site EUI has become so ingrained in the industry that I have to acknowledge it and at least show users how it's calculated. In my view, it's an ad-hoc metric that was invented to deal with previously limited amount of information on energy sources.
Instead of using site EUI, I would recommend using the following metrics depending on what you are trying to evaluate:
Utility Cost / Square Meter - to measure the monetary value of a building to an owner or user
Kg CO2 / Square Meter - to measure the environmental and climatic impact of a building
Emergy / Square Meter - to measure the overall thermodynamic performance of a building
The first two are actually fairly easy to calculate these days just by researching your site's utility rates or grid energy mixture and multiplying the building electricity or fuel by their respective rates. I will add in some capabilities to Honeybee soon to make it even easier for you to get these values from your EPW file and databases of utility rates/grid mixture. Emergy is much harder to calculate as you have to trace all your energy sources all of the way back to the sun but there are a number of experts at work to make this calculation possible (probably in the next few years, we may have much easier ways to calculate it).
Hope this helps explain the current setup.
-Chris…
search for residential type and surprisingly there are none. This can be, but i'm surprised.
The location in example is the Financial District of Manhattan. I assume there might not be too many purely residential buildings there. If you increase the radius to 300meters it will find one.The OSMobject "Residential building" will look for mostly purely residential buildings. For example those in Chinatown or Lower East Side.However most of the time a building might be a multi-purpose: shops on the ground floor, offices above, and above them residential apartments. Users can sometimes avoid tagging these kind of buildings, and may just tag them with "buildings"="yes", not the type of the building too (for example: "building"="multiuse"). So this may be the problem why you might not get too many residential buildings.I guess the only solution to this issue is to add these tags by yourself. Then Gismo will instantly make use of them.I mentioned previously that I will create a couple of video tutorials, but I seemed to never found enough time. I apologize for that. The process is actually quite simple.
Here is small step by step tutorial on how to do that. It may take you about 2 minutes to tag your building and use that tag in Gismo.
Also office buildings. I imagine this is not up to you, but can be kind of disappointing. I wanted for example to do some Ladybug analysis only on residential or office buildings ... pitty.
"Office building" has not been added to "OSMobjects" dropdown list. I have just added it.However, whenever some sort of object is not defined in "OSMobjects" dropdown list, one can use the _requiredKey and requiredValues_ inputs of the "OSM tag" component:
I just tried looking for office building for the same location we have in the create_legend_example.gh file and it found 3 of them. There would probably need to be more, but it may be that nobody tagged those with "building"="office"
The legend is nice, though i think is not completely synchronized with the LegendBakeParameters: You need to provide a point for the LegenPlane input and another for the titleOriginPt output of the CreateLegend.
Unlike Ladybug, Gismo threats the title and the legend separately. So the legend's color bar would have its own starting point (plane) while the title will have its own. I found myself puzzled sometimes in Ladybug, why this wasn't possible.Or did I misunderstand you?…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 12:33pm on May 8, 2017
a direct answer for you, in part because that statement suggests a complicated data tree indeed! And in part because I can't quite shake the question "Why?".
It's my nature to "think out of the box" and as you may have noticed, my answers in the other two threads related to this topic weren't quite what you asked for. The first question that comes to mind in this case is why look for the two closest trunks? Why not just the closest or why not "N" (all or all those within a given radius)?
The next question is why use a plane intersection at arbitrary height to get a point on each trunk for measuring distances between them?
So please bear with me as I explain how I've explored this problem so far, knowing I don't have an answer yet and, in fact, am not even sure that the question makes sense to me. ;)
First, I got tired of looking at these upside down "trees" so I flipped them right side up. I used 'Mirror' instead of 'Rotate' which might cause problems? But lets move on. I changed your preview colors so they wouldn't conflict with my 'Tree/List Viewer' defaults and to increase contrast a bit.
Then I skipped your methods for finding "Cluster 'B' and 'C'" and used 'Curve Proximity' between the trunks instead.
This is hard to convey with a static image but might make more sense interactively. There are two copies of 'Tree/List Viewer'; the second one ("slave" group) is driven by the set of sliders in the first one. As you move the 'path idx' slider, one of the trunks will be cyan in color, as set above. The others will be blue except for one that is yellow. As you move the 'list idx' slider, the yellow highlight will move among the blue trunks, showing the closest trunk at 'list idx' = 0 and the furthest at 'list idx' = 3 (five trunks total, one selected by 'path idx' and the other four by 'list idx'. The result is that for each trunk, we have all the other trunks sorted by distance.
That's all for now! There is a very simple way to connect the 'Twigs' instead of the 'Trunks' to 'Crv A' with interesting results, but it requires flattening the 'Twigs' so isn't as useful as we want.
The big question for me remains: what is the data/tree structure of the results you seek? From the statement I quoted above, it sounds like:
One branch per trunk.
For each trunk, one branch per twig? (or...?)
For each twig branch...? A list of distances to each of the other trunks? (or a list of the other trunks sorted by their distances from this twig?)
It sounds like a complicated mess, frankly. And again begs the question, why? What's the underlying goal beyond the objectives you have outlined so far?…
Added by Joseph Oster at 7:59pm on November 14, 2017
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…
But not just any gum tree. The angophora, no less:
Why? Because I like nature, that's why. Every time I see new designs –especially architectural designs– it worries me that the natural environment is being taken over. Not just that, but even the new materials used in all product designs has to come from nature as well [read: mines].
So. People are forgetting that we still need trees and I believe that if someone sees a beautiful [read: established] tree in their architectural plans, they are going to be much more likely to build around it and not cut it down. That alone would no doubt increase the value of the house.
My thinking is that current tree models suck. They look unnatural and I think I know why. They're not random or organic enough. They're not detailed enough. That's basically my 'rationale' for this project. Just look at how different all of these tree trunks are!
So I am not being paid for this project. It's a personal project of mine. I'm just worried about the trunk shape for now — I'll worry about all the leaves... when I get to that.
I am a grasshopper beginner. Please keep that in mind. I am also fairly hopeless at traditional programming, but I find the visual approach of grasshopper much easier to grasp. So unfortunately I have gotten stuck and need some help, even just a clue, as to how to proceed.
That said, here is my current progress:
About a year ago, I started modelling with straight trunks using pipe sections, to see if I could get a very basic "tree" shape. And to see if I could join the segments together. Yes it works but it looks hopeless as you can imagine. Then I stopped for a long while. Now I'm back at it, hoping to improve a lot more.
I have already made one basic vertical nurbs curve with tangents at either end as the main "trunk".
I tried creating two ellipses at each end of the main trunk/curve and lofting between them but it omitted the main curve/rail. So it ended up being an elliptical trunk with straight sides which of course still didn't look right.
Then I divided the first main curve up into a number of segments. I think that is a better approach.
I have taken the parameters of the curve at each segment (probably the tangent, but I am unsure what the exact parameter is) and used that to form a basic angled plane at each segment/division.
I have been able to draw ellipses at each segment and rotate them onto the plane.
I was going to loft it together later on. A Curved loft with elliptical cross-sections looks much better than straight a pipe does, but still looks too unnatural.
I quickly realised that tree trunks are not elliptical, but rather, shaped more like 'kidneys'.
The next step was to create >3 points on each of those planes (spaced fairly evenly around the ellipse so as not to create a really funky/unwanted shape).
Maybe it would be better to model with a triangle or other polygon instead of an ellipse. I haven't got that far yet... because here is where I am getting stuck.
I managed to find a way of getting three roughly 'triangular' points along each that ellipse.
I also managed to create three nurbs cuves in the Z direction which intersected those three points, a bit like three seams down the side of the tree trunk, but couldn't figure out how to loft it all together.
I think it was the wrong approach anyway... I'd rather try to create a bunch of nurbs curves at each of the XY planes so as to get more control of the shape.
What I am trying to do now is create three roughly triangular-spaced points on a basic ellipse through which I can then draw a simple nurbs curve (think like a cross section of the trunk).
I would then like to add some XY-only randomness to the positions of those points. Not Z randomness, otherwise the trunk is going to get messed/kinked up. That's probably very important.
Then I would like to loft those nurbs curvs at each XY plane together forming the basic tree trunk, which also tapers based on some other variable (a non-linear factor, not simply distance from ground plane, perhaps something else?).
I have attached the GH file.
I am also open to suggestions if you have a better way of solving a problem. I would like to retain control over a lot of factor such as number of branches, spacing, average branch length, etc. My main contrsaints are that the entire thing has to be somewhat random and non-linear.
…