decided to concentrate my effort today on this problem and manage to come up with a solution !
I will explain it if somebody else is looking for a similar solution.
Finally my only problem was to create an alternating true/false list that inverse at certain index, this what I came up with: I have a list of points and random index , the box and sphere represent true and false, and the blue sphere is the node(index) where I want to see an inversion.
In reality, it was pretty simple, I just didn't know the right modules. (In yellow, it's the most important part of the patch)(Sorry for the spelling mistake)
Here is a diagram of what I did: I created a list going to 1 to [number of lines], here it's 1 to 10, I had node at 3-4 and 7-8. For each node I created a list of 1 repeated [(number of lines)-index] times. Here, 7 (10-3) and 3 (10-7) times.
After grafting everything, I add everything in mass addition module. I had my final list which I checked if it was divisible by two.
It was more of a logic problem than a grasshopper problem.
Here it is the initial shape with what I wanted !
…
w how. Thanks for that. Now I do have some questions.
1. I am using the area weight tool. I am first calculating the volume of the form. I then multiply that value by it's density. So for concrete I am using 2400 kg/m^3 x volume. I then divided that number by the area of the membrane that is supporting the mass. This gives me my area weight. It seems to be working well but I want to verify that this is the correct workflow. I also want to verify that gravity would be turned off since I am thinking it is already calculated within the weight component.
2. I am finding that the new triangular element tool works much better than trying to use EA/L as input for the springs from mesh. Even when I set the timestep, subiteration, and drag I still have issues with getting very stiff materials to work. On the new finite elements tool I wanted to verify that E was in pascals. I also wanted to ask if I use imperial units can psi be entered. Now from what I am seeing the materials are deforming more than expected and to get less deformation and stretch in the mesh area I am finding the E value needs to be increased more than the true material values. Often I am raising E by a multiple of 10 or 100.
I am going to describe my problem and I will gladly share the definition if you'd prefer looking it over but basically I have an inflated membrane at a certain pressure made of a particular material. I then have a certain volume of concrete on top of the inflated membrane. My goal is to review the displacements as the concrete is applied over the membrane and find the proper pressures to apply to keep it free from deformation. I am including a picture from a project that we used kangaroo on and attempted to deal with such issues. It was a class sponsored by Cloud9 architecture held at Art Center College of Design where I was one of the instructors. Hopefully this illustrates the problem. To summarize any example file that shows the best way to implement real material properties and unit based forces would be a helpful reference and would be greatly appreciated.
…
ng is deciding how and where to store your data. If you're writing textual code using any one of a huge number of programming languages there are a lot of different options, each with its own benefits and drawbacks. Sometimes you just need to store a single data point. At other times you may need a list of exactly one hundred data points. At other times still circumstances may demand a list of a variable number of data points.
In programming jargon, lists and arrays are typically used to store an ordered collection of data points, where each item is directly accessible. Bags and hash sets are examples of unordered data storage. These storage mechanisms do not have a concept of which data comes first and which next, but they are much better at searching the data set for specific values. Stacks and queues are ordered data structures where only the youngest or oldest data points are accessible respectively. These are popular structures for code designed to create and execute schedules. Linked lists are chains of consecutive data points, where each point knows only about its direct neighbours. As a result, it's a lot of work to find the one-millionth point in a linked list, but it's incredibly efficient to insert or remove points from the middle of the chain. Dictionaries store data in the form of key-value pairs, allowing one to index complicated data points using simple lookup codes.
The above is a just a small sampling of popular data storage mechanisms, there are many, many others. From multidimensional arrays to SQL databases. From readonly collections to concurrent k-dTrees. It takes a fair amount of knowledge and practice to be able to navigate this bewildering sea of options and pick the best suited storage mechanism for any particular problem. We did not wish to confront our users with this plethora of programmatic principles, and instead decided to offer only a single data storage mechanism.*
Data storage in Grasshopper
In order to see what mechanism would be optimal for Grasshopper, it is necessary to first list the different possible ways in which components may wish to access and store data, and also how families of data points flow through a Grasshopper network, often acquiring more complexity over time.
A lot of components operate on individual values and also output individual values as results. This is the simplest category, let's call it 1:1 (pronounced as "one to one", indicating a mapping from single inputs to single outputs). Two examples of 1:1 components are Subtraction and Construct Point. Subtraction takes two arguments on the left (A and B), and outputs the difference (A-B) to the right. Even when the component is called upon to calculate the difference between two collections of 12 million values each, at any one time it only cares about three values; A, B and the difference between the two. Similarly, Construct Point takes three separate numbers as input arguments and combines them to form a single xyz point.
Another common category of components create lists of data from single input values. We'll refer to these components as 1:N. Range and Divide Curve are oft used examples in this category. Range takes a single numeric domain and a single integer, but it outputs a list of numbers that divide the domain into the specified number of steps. Similarly, Divide Curve requires a single curve and a division count, but it outputs several lists of data, where the length of each list is a function of the division count.
The opposite behaviour also occurs. Common N:1 components are Polyline and Loft, both of which consume a list of points and curves respectively, yet output only a single curve or surface.
Lastly (in the list category), N:N components are also available. A fair number of components operate on lists of data and also output lists of data. Sort and Reverse List are examples of N:N components you will almost certainly encounter when using Grasshopper. It is true that N:N components mostly fall into the data management category, in the sense that they are mostly employed to change the way data is stored, rather than to create entirely new data, but they are common and important nonetheless.
A rare few components are even more complex than 1:N, N:1, or N:N, in that they are not content to operate on or output single lists of data points. The Divide Surface and Square Grid components want to output not just lists of points, but several lists of points, each of which represents a single row or column in a grid. We can refer to these components as 1:N' or N':1 or N:N' or ... depending on how the inputs and outputs are defined.
The above listing of data mapping categories encapsulate all components that ship with Grasshopper, though they do not necessarily minister to all imaginable mappings. However in the spirit of getting on with the software it was decided that a data structure that could handle individual values, lists of values, and lists of lists of values would solve at least 99% of the then existing problems and was thus considered to be a 'good thing'.
Data storage as the outcome of a process
If the problems of 1:N' mappings only occurred in those few components to do with grids, it would probably not warrant support for lists-of-lists in the core data structure. However, 1:N' or N:N' mappings can be the result of the concatenation of two or more 1:N components. Consider the following case: A collection of three polysurfaces (a box, a capped cylinder, and a triangular prism) is imported from Rhino into Grasshopper. The shapes are all exploded into their separate faces, resulting in 6 faces for the box, 3 for the cylinder, and 5 for the prism. Across each face, a collection of isocurves is drawn, resembling a hatching. Ultimately, each isocurve is divided into equally spaced points.
This is not an unreasonably elaborate case, but it already shows how shockingly quickly layers of complexity are introduced into the data as it flows from the left to the right side of the network.
It's no good ending up with a single huge list containing all the points. The data structure we use must be detailed enough to allow us to select from it any logical subset. This means that the ultimate data structure must contain a record of all the mappings that were applied from start to finish. It must be possible to select all the points that are associated with the second polysurface, but not the first or third. It must also be possible to select all points that are associated with the first face of each polysurface, but not any subsequent faces. Or a selection which includes only the fourth point of each division and no others.
The only way such selection sets can be defined, is if the data structure contains a record of the "history" of each data point. I.e. for every point we must be able to figure out which original shape it came from (the cube, the cylinder or the prism), which of the exploded faces it is associated with, which isocurve on that face was involved and the index of the point within the curve division family.
A flexible mechanism for variable history records.
The storage constraints mentioned so far (to wit, the requirement of storing individual values, lists of values, and lists of lists of values), combined with the relational constraints (to wit, the ability to measure the relatedness of various lists within the entire collection) lead us to Data Trees. The data structure we chose is certainly not the only imaginable solution to this problem, and due to its terse notation can appear fairly obtuse to the untrained eye. However since data trees only employ non-negative integers to identify both lists and items within lists, the structure is very amenable to simple arithmetic operations, which makes the structure very pliable from an algorithmic point of view.
A data tree is an ordered collection of lists. Each list is associated with a path, which serves as the identifier of that list. This means that two lists in the same tree cannot have the same path. A path is a collection of one or more non-negative integers. Path notation employs curly brackets and semi-colons as separators. The simplest path contains only the number zero and is written as: {0}. More complicated paths containing more elements are written as: {2;4;6}. Just as a path identifies a list within the tree, an index identifies a data point within a list. An index is always a single, non-negative integer. Indices are written inside square brackets and appended to path notation, in order to fully identify a single piece of data within an entire data tree: {2,4,6}[10].
Since both path elements and indices are zero-based (we start counting at zero, not one), there is a slight disconnect between the ordinality and the cardinality of numbers within data trees. The first element equals index 0, the second element can be found at index 1, the third element maps to index 2, and so on and so forth. This means that the "Eleventh point of the seventh isocurve of the fifth face of the third polysurface" will be written as {2;4;6}[10]. The first path element corresponds with the oldest mapping that occurred within the file, and each subsequent element represents a more recent operation. In this sense the path elements can be likened to taxonomic identifiers. The species {Animalia;Mammalia;Hominidea;Homo} and {Animalia;Mammalia;Hominidea;Pan} are more closely related to each other than to {Animalia;Mammalia; Cervidea;Rangifer}** because they share more codes at the start of their classification. Similarly, the paths {2;4;4} and {2;4;6} are more closely related to each other than they are to {2;3;5}.
The messy reality of data trees.
Although you may agree with me that in theory the data tree approach is solid, you may still get frustrated at the rate at which data trees grow more complex. Often Grasshopper will choose to add additional elements to the paths in a tree where none in fact is needed, resulting in paths that all share a lot of zeroes in certain places. For example a data tree might contain the paths:
{0;0;0;0;0}
{0;0;0;0;1}
{0;0;0;0;2}
{0;0;0;0;3}
{0;0;1;0;0}
{0;0;1;0;1}
{0;0;1;0;2}
{0;0;1;0;3}
instead of the far more economical:
{0;0}
{0;1}
{0;2}
{0;3}
{1;0}
{1;1}
{1;2}
{1;3}
The reason all these zeroes are added is because we value consistency over economics. It doesn't matter whether a component actually outputs more than one list, if the component belongs to the 1:N, 1:N', or N:N' groups, it will always add an extra integer to all the paths, because some day in the future, when the inputs change, it may need that extra integer to keep its lists untangled. We feel it's bad behaviour for the topology of a data tree to be subject to the topical values in that tree. Any component which relies on a specific topology will no longer work when that topology changes, and that should happen as seldom as possible.
Conclusion
Although data trees can be difficult to work with and probably cause more confusion than any other part of Grasshopper, they seem to work well in the majority of cases and we haven't been able to come up with a better solution. That's not to say we never will, but data trees are here to stay for the foreseeable future.
* This is not something we hit on immediately. The very first versions of Grasshopper only allowed for the storage of a single data point per parameter, making operations like [Loft] or [Divide Curve] impossible. Later versions allowed for a single list per parameter, which was still insufficient for all but the most simple algorithms.
** I'm skipping a lot of taxonometric classifications here to keep it simple.…
Added by David Rutten at 2:22pm on January 20, 2015
u can still find some wonky behaviour in GH related to datatrees. My experience is that new users quite quickly get the hang of it once they learn that a tree is in fact not a tree but in the first place set of lists, where the path shows how the pieces of data used to be grouped.
Branch Count checking A component has multiple tree inputs, but has different amount of branches, each having branch count > 2. (While I understand the logic of combining multiple trees, I've not once encounted once that combining a component with e.g. an input of 2 branches and an input of 4 branches to give any kind of sensible output.
Desired behaviour: If a component has branches (each being > 2 path count), the component should throw a warning. ("Strict branches behaviour?). For example: take an offset component, with 6 branches of curves and 5 branches of offsets. It is extremely likely that this is the result of an error earlier in the definition. This works however without a problem - the last branch is repeated again, and it's later on quite hard to discover something went wrong.
Checking branch Count The most important numeric is the amount of branches, and the amount of items in the tree. It's desired that the hovers show the amount of data and the amount of branches.
Desired behaviour
Trees with paths of different rank Trees that contain {0;0} and {0} and {0;0;1} is usually a sign of trouble of not well merged trees, faulty C# components, or just nasty coding habits.
Trim as undo graft instead of flatten Having the trim in the context menu would provide an easy way to undo a graft. Right now the easiest way for many people is to flatten it, and then start all over again - while just getting rid of the last index keeps the underlying history and makes it easier to write reuseable pieces of code when you prepend datatrees to it.
Component to get branch by index, not by path Would be great. Suppose you have a grid of points, grouped by row. It would help to show: "look, this is in the first path, it's called {0;0;1}, it's got 10 points, these points are the first row".
Analogue to using list item to show what is the first point, second point, and so on.
Semantic path names (maybe far fetched) But what if we can add a short name of each method that was executed to the path list, so it can show:
{Slider 0; Series 0; Point 0}{Slider 0; Series 0; Point 1}
{Slider 0; Series 0; Point 2}
{Slider 0; Series 0; Point 3}
{Slider 0; Series 1; Point 0}
{Slider 0; Series 1; Point 1}
{Slider 0; Series 1; Point 2}
{Slider 0; Series 1; Point 3}
Make the input/data matching inside components explicit Can we make it even more obvious that a component is not a black box that's executed once, but in fact an iteration machine that tries to make sense of the inputs that's fed to this box?
Show data combination. How data input A relates to data input B and data input C, is currently very implict and is just plain hard to learn., and required the ability to be able to relate the output back to the input. If we can textually or even graphically show what data matching occured inside a component, it would greatly help the understanding (and debugging) of "what's going on here in this component"
A verbose explanation of the data matching in component A
Iteration one: - Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0) - Motion: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Vector 0,0,0)
Iteration two:
- Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0)
- Motion: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 1: (Vector 10,0,0)
Iteration three:
- Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0)
- Motion: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 1: (Vector 20,0,0)
etc.
A verbose explanation of the data matching in component B
Iteration one: - Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0) - Motion: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Vector 0,0,0)
..
Iteration seven:
- Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 0: (Point 0,0,0)
- Motion: We take the data item from Branch 7, Position 0: (Vector 0,70,0)
..
Iteration 27:
- Geometry: We take the data item from Branch 0, Position 7: (Point 80,0,0)
- Motion: We take the data item from Branch 2, Position 0: (Vector 0,20,0)
…
ntrol points in Rhino.
Also, I forgot to mention in part 1 that when doing the directional subdivision, depending on how you drew your input mesh, there is a chance that it gets divided in the wrong direction, and you end up with something like this:
Which is not what we want.
The simple way to fix this is with the MeshTurn component, which rotates the direction of each face by one side:
Now we can use physical relaxation to smooth our mesh. In this example I show a simple tensile relaxation, so it will be negatively curved, but the same principles can be applied to all sorts of surfaces by using different combinations of forces.
The definition for the relaxation is attached below.
There are 3 main groups of forces used:
Planarization
For the mesh to be able to unroll properly into flat strips, we want each of the thin rectangles to be flat.
Springs
I already showed how the WarpWeft splitting can be used to assign different strengths to control the shape of a mesh here. Now because of the uneven subdivision we have very different numbers of edges in each direction, so the strengths have to account for this. Depending on the level of subdivision used and the shape you want to achieve, you may need to set the Weft stiffness to be 10 to 100 times that of the Warp.
Edge Smoothing
Because our subdivided mesh has square ends, we might not want to simply anchor the boundary, so I've shown how we can force them to become more circular, while still staying in place. Each boundary curve gets pulled onto its best fit plane, while also applying bending to round it out, and springs to keep it from shrinking.
(This part could also be achieved in other ways, such as pulling the boundary vertices to a curve)
When we run this relaxation, the shape should smooth out to something like this:
Play with the tensions and boundaries until you are happy with the result, wait for it to stop moving, then stop the timer. (Remember it is very important to always stop the timer once the relaxation has finished, before continuing working with the output, as otherwise Grasshopper becomes very slow, because Kangaroo is constantly resolving, even if no movement is visible).
If you want to try other shapes than tensile surfaces, you could also use forces such as bending, laplacian smoothing, or pulling to some target surface to control the form.
Next - Part 3 splitting and unrolling
…
rmation?" I know that this can already be accomplished using the brilliant Kangaroo plugin, but I wanted a simpler and faster (yet still accurate) single component that could replicate this unique curve using a variety of inputs: the length of the rod/wire, the width/distance between the endpoints, the height of the bend, and the tangent angle at the start. I also wanted make the unknowns (such as height if only length and width are known) easily accessible for plugging into additional components.
The resulting script, being an all-in-one solution, is somewhat unwieldy, but it could easily be broken down into smaller components (custom .gha's which I don't have the ability to code). If someone wants to tackle this, please do! I'm not an expert coder by any means, and as this was only my second time diving into Grasshopper scripting, if the script seems somewhat strange, that's probably why. I did try to comment the code pretty well though. Here's the full description:
--------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION: This beast creates the so-called 'elastica curve', the shape a long, thin rod or wire makes when it is bent elastically (i.e. not permanently). In this case, force is assumed to only be applied horizontally (which would be in line with the rod at rest) and both ends are assumed to be pinned or hinged meaning they are free to rotate (as opposed to clamped, when the end tangent angle is fixed, usually horizontally). An interesting finding is that it doesn't matter what the material or cross-sectional area is, as long as they're uniform along the entire length. Everything makes the same shape when bent as long as it doesn't cross the threshold from elastic to plastic (permanent) deformation (I don't bother to find that limit here, but can be found if the yield stress for a material is known).
Key to the formulas used in this script are elliptic integrals, specifically K(m), the complete elliptic integral of the first kind, and E(m), the complete elliptic integral of the second kind. There was a lot of confusion over the 'm' and 'k' parameters for these functions, as some people use them interchangeably, but they are not the same. m = k^2 (thus k = Sqrt(m)). I try to use the 'm' parameter exclusively to avoid this confusion. Note that there is a unique 'm' parameter for every configuration/shape of the elastica curve.
This script tries to find that unique 'm' parameter based on the inputs. The algorithm starts with a test version of m, evaluates an expression, say 2*E(m)/K(m)-1, then compares the result to what it should be (in this case, a known width/length ratio). Iterate until the correct m is found. Once we have m, we can then calculate all of the other unknowns, then find points that lie on that curve, then interpolate those points for the actual curve. You can also use Wolfram|Alpha as I did to find the m parameter based on the equations in this script (example here: http://tiny.cc/t4tpbx for when say width=45.2 and length=67.1).
Other notes:
* This script works with negative values for width, which will creat a self-intersecting curve (as it should). The curvature of the elastica starts to break down around m=0.95 (~154°), but this script will continue to work until M_MAX, m=0.993 (~169°). If you wish to ignore self-intersecting curves, set ignoreSelfIntersecting to True
* When the only known values are length and height, it is actually possible for certain ratios of height to length to have two valid m values (thus 2 possible widths and angles). This script will return them both.
* Only the first two valid parameters (of the required ones) will be used, meaning if all four are connected (length, width or a PtB, height, and angle), this script will only use length and width (or a PtB).
* Depending on the magnitude of your inputs (say if they're really small, like if length < 10), you might have to increase the constant ROUNDTO at the bottom
REFERENCES: {1} "The elastic rod" by M.E. Pacheco Q. & E. Pina, http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/rmfe/v53n2/v53n2a8.pdf {2} "An experiment in nonlinear beam theory" by A. Valiente, http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/doc/I3lwnxdfGz {3} "Snap buckling, writhing and Loop formation In twisted rods" by V.G.A. GOSS, http://myweb.lsbu.ac.uk/~gossga/thesisFinal.pdf {4} "Theory of Elastic Stability" by Stephen Timoshenko, http://www.scribd.com/doc/50402462/Timoshenko-Theory-of-Elastic-Stability (start on p. 76)
INPUT: PtA - First anchor point (required) PtB - Second anchor point (optional, though 2 out of the 4--length, width, height, angle--need to be specified) [note that PtB can be the same as PtA (meaning width would be zero)] [also note that if a different width is additionally specified that's not equal to the distance between PtA and PtB, then the end point will not equal PtB anymore] Pln - Plane of the bent rod/wire, which bends up in the +y direction. The line between PtA and PtB (if specified) must be parallel to the x-axis of this plane
** 2 of the following 4 need to be specified ** Len - Length of the rod/wire, which needs to be > 0 Wid - Width between the endpoints of the curve [note: if PtB is specified in addition, and distance between PtA and PtB <> width, the end point will be relocated Ht - Height of the bent rod/wire (when negative, curve will bend downward, relative to the input plane, instead) Ang - Inner departure angle or tangent angle (in radians) at the ends of the bent rod/wire. Set up so as width approaches length (thus height approaches zero), angle approaches zero
* Following variables only needed for optional calculating of bending force, not for shape of curve. E - Young's modulus (modulus of elasticity) in GPa (=N/m^2) (material-specific. for example, 7075 aluminum is roughly 71.7 GPa) I - Second moment of area (or area moment of inertia) in m^4 (cross-section-specific. for example, a hollow rod would have I = pi * (outer_diameter^4 - inner_diameter^4) / 32 Note: E*I is also known as flexural rigidity or bending stiffness
OUTPUT: out - only for debugging messages Pts - the list of points that approximate the shape of the elastica Crv - the 3rd-degree curve interpolated from those points (with accurate start & end tangents) L - the length of the rod/wire W - the distance (width) between the endpoints of the rod/wire H - the height of the bent rod/wire A - the tangent angle at the (start) end of the rod/wire F - the force needed to hold the rod/wire in a specific shape (based on the material properties & cross-section) **be sure your units for 'I' match your units for the rest of your inputs (length, width, etc.). Also note that the critical buckling load (force) that makes the rod/wire start to bend can be found at height=0
THANKS TO: Mårten Nettelbladt (thegeometryofbending.blogspot.com) Daniel Piker (Kangaroo plugin) David Rutten (Grasshopper guru) Euler & Bernoulli (the O.G.'s)
--------------------------------------------------
Edit: More on the math behind this here.
Cheers,
Will
…
Added by Will McElwain at 4:08pm on February 26, 2014
t;Custom additional code> Bob[] b = new Bob[] {new Bob(1), new Bob(2), new Bob(3)};
class Bob{....
}
//But how to make something like this in a loop?
// <Custom additional code>
Bob[] b = new Bob[10];
for(int i = 0; Bob.Length; i++){
b[i] = new Bob(i);
}…
housing for an LED PCB. The object is a parametric series of discs with an opening inside made up of a mirrored curve [drawn in Rhino, mirrored in GH]
It is madde up of N number of discs which can be varied through the distance between the circular outline using a divided curve [straight line in GH]. The length of the object can be varied using a length parameter, and the shape using a graph mapper.
I've chosen to cap the end two discs by creating two sets of outlines. One set has the central aperture cutout for the PCB, whereas the other set is a trimmed circle [achieved using the "trim box" layer profile in Rhino]
I then cull the outer two curves from one array, and the inner N-2 curves from the inner array.
The final outcome I am after is to create the housing as both an STL and a 2d template for laser cutting. This is a learning exercise for me as well as a cool project.
I had it working OK, but then I adjusted the profile for the PCB and joined it and now it is giving me some grief. I am sure the answer is obvious. The problem is the PCB profile is made up of 3 polycurves, whereas the disc profile is one planar curve. I have no problem using the flatten option so there are only N sets of curves coming out of the "Join Curves" component. However when I cull the curves, the planar curves making up the exterior edge cull fine, but the interior curves [the joined, PCB profile] culls in a different [irrational?] order to what I would expect. If I connect the single planar curve to the culls section, it works fine, but the joined line section just won't play.
In the instance uploaded N = 10, based on spacings. And index white it appears that 0 and 9 are diagonal to what I'd expect, although if you fiddle with the values they go all over the place.
Can someone please help me and explain what I did wrong? Files are attached... I have screen grabbed the relevant section, but it is grouped in red and labelled as "problem child" :)
Many thanks for your help, sorry if this looks like a clusterf**k, first time for everything... any advice very much appreciated, not just relating to my problem.
All the best
Nick…
ively and creatively solve today’s product development challenges.
Our Rhino3D Foundations for Industrial Design class provides an in-depth look at 2D and 3D tools and methods with Rhino3D, a NURBs surface modeling software. In this class, we will systematically work through Rhino3D’s core features, using them to model the various components of a consumer product. Over the course of 3 days, we’ll cover some foundational topics, including Rhino interface and navigation, Rhino3D object types and properties, creating and editing 2D and 3D geometry, procedural modeling, automation, transforming geometry, Rhino modeling best practices, freeform vs. precision modeling, and exporting geometry.
You’ll take away the following:
Navigate the Rhino modeling environment
Create, edit, and modify curves, surfaces, and solids
Precision model using coordinate input and object snaps
Use transformation and universal deformation tools
Apply best practices for layer management and model annotation
Download the course one-pager. Need more information? Connect with us.
This class is ideal for:
Industrial designers who are new to Rhino3D and want to learn its concepts and technical features in an instructor-led environment.
For groups of 10 or more, contact Mode Lab at hello@modelab.is
Interested in additional training options?
https://www.modelab.is/upcoming-computational-design-events…