rtitions." (http://wias-berlin.de/software/index.jsp?id=TetGen&lang=1)
To continue with my wrapping career, TetRhino (or Tetrino) is a .NET wrapper for the well-known and pretty amazing TetGen mesh tetrahedralization program. It provides one new GH component for discretizing or remeshing objects using TetGen. Basic tetrahedralization functionality is exposed with a few different output types that can be controlled. At the moment, the only control for tetrahedra sizes is the minimum ratio, which is controlled by a slider. This is hardcoded to always be above 1.0-1.1, as it is very easy to generate a LOT of data (and crash)...
The libs are divided again into different modules to allow flexibility and fun with or without Rhino and GH, so have fun. All 4 libs should be placed in a folder (maybe called 'tetgen') in your GH libraries folder. Remember to unblock.
Once again, the libs are provided as-is, with no guarantee of support for now, as I use them internally and do not intend to develop this into a shiny, polished plug-in. If there is enough interest, I can tidy up the code-base and upload it somewhere if someone more savvy than me wants to play.
TetgenGH.gha - Grasshopper assembly which adds the 'Tetrahedralize' component to Mesh -> Triangulation.
TetgenRC.dll - RhinoCommon interface to the Tetgen wrapper.
TetgenSharp.dll - dotNET wrapper for Tetgen.
TetgenWrapper.dll - Actual wrapper for Tetgen.
Obviously, credit where credit is due for this excellent and tiny piece of software:
"The development of TetGen is executed at the Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics in the research group of Numerical Mathematics and Scientific Computing." See http://wias-berlin.de/software/index.jsp?id=TetGen&lang=1 for more details about TetGen.
To wrap up, some notes about the inputs:
These are the possible integer Flags (F) values and resultant outputs for the GH component:
0 - Output M yields a closed boundary mesh. Useful for simply remeshing your input mesh.
1 - Output M yields a list of tetra meshes.
2 - Output I yields a DataTree of tetra indices, grouped in lists of 4. Output P yields a list of points to which the tetra indices correspond.
3 - Output I yields a DataTree of edge indices, grouped in lists of 2. Output P yields a list of points to which the edge indices correspond. Useful for lots of things, very easy to create lines from this to plug into K2 or something for some ropey FEA (or not so ropey!) ;)
As this component can potentially create a LOT of data, especially with dense meshes, care should be taken with the MinRatio (R) input. This will try to constrain the tetra to be more or less elongated, which also means that the lower this value gets, the more tetra need to be added to satisfy this constraint. Start with very high values and lower them until satisfactory.
Hopefully shouldn't be an issue, but it's possible that you need the 2015 Microsoft C++ Redistributable.
Happy tetrahedralizing...
UPDATE: The tetgen.zip has been updated with some fixes.
UPDATE2: This is now available on Food4Rhino: http://www.food4rhino.com/app/tetrino
…
Added by Tom Svilans at 1:27am on October 24, 2017
can work in any node of a given hierarchy tree (loaded in your work session) by making the node "active". "Nodes" can be other things as well (like workplane, clip definitions etc).
Why to do that weird thing? Well, think any design being "flat" > meaning that all objects are placed in a single file (and in a single layer). Not that good > although the items are present you barely can handle them (because power is nothing without control, he he).
Let's go one step further: we can start classifying objects in "groups" (like a directories/files organization in any O/S). This means, in MCAD speak, creating assemblies (a void thing kinda like a directory) that contain components/entities (kinda like files).
Several steps further we end up with severely nested "arrangements" of entities (an assembly could be parent of something and child of something else).
For instance, it could be rather obvious the logical classification of a "geodetic" (so to speak) structure like this : a 40000m2 "hangar" defining some thematic park.
I mean : a void master that owns 4 equal void segment sets that own 4 "legs" that own various geodesic structural members + cables + membranes + you name it etc etc.
Each "leg" owns the concrete base (Shared) and a rather complex set of objects.
Notice that some tensile membrane "fixture" combos (see above)...act as perimeter light fixtures as well...meaning that the membrane tension plate may could be a child of a void "light" parent...or may could be a "stand alone" assembly etc etc.
These arrangements can be internal (belonging in, say, a x node within the current active file) or external (belonging in a y node within another file). If they deal with the same (topologically speaking) object they define clusters of Shared entities (or variations)- where only the view transformation matrix changes (in the simple scenario, he he). For instance the disk shown above is a Shared Assembly that owns the bolts, the plates, the tension member etc etc. Selective Instancing allows modifying some attributes without affecting the topology (i.e. the geometry).
The whole (terrible) mess is controlled by some tree like "dialog" (in Catia is "transparent") that is called Structure Browser. By controlled I mean (1) display/display mode with regard any tree member combo/selection set (assembly and/or component) in any View (2) clip state control (3) active status (for modifications/variations) (4) workplane control (5) drag and drop ownership control (6) ....
Now...what if I would chan…
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
n fact) according a vast variety of "modes" PLUS the required clash detection (ALWAYS via trigonometry). In plain English: outline any collection of Breps and "apply" a truss that is topologically sound (planarization in case of quads etc is an added constrain). PLUS outline/solve what comes "next" after that truss (like the planar glazing "add-on" brackets of yours [ the ones that need redesign, he he], or some roofing/facade skin system [secondary supports, corrugated sheet metal, insulation, final cladding, dogs and cats])
2. Imaging doing this in real life (nothing to do with "abstract" formations of "lines" or "shapes" or whatever). This means primarily adopting a BIM umbrella: in plain English AECOSim, Revit or Allplan (I'm a Bentley man so I use AECOSim + Generative Components). This also means using "in-parallel" a top MCAD app for 1:1 details, FEA/FIM and the vast paraphernalia required for real-life studies destined for real-life projects (made with real-life money by real-life people). My choice: CATIA/Siemens NX.
3. What to send to Microstation (if not using Generative Components, that is) and/or CATIA? In what "state"? To do what exactly? For instance even if you could design this feature driven tensile membrane anchor custom node in Rhino (you can't) it could be 100% useless in CATIA:
4. Imaging masterminding ways to send them nested instance definitions of ... er ... a coordinate system (all what you need). In plain English: since is utterly pointless to send them nested blocks that can't been parametrically controlled (variations/modifications/PLM management/BOM/specs etc etc)... send them simply the "instructions" to place coordinate systems of components that ARE parametrically designed within Microstation and/or CATIA (classic feature driven design approach blah blah). So GH solves topology et all (working on data imported via, say, Excel sheets related with sizes of components etc etc) and sends to Microstation simply this (a myriad of "this" actually):
I do hope that the gist of the "method" (the ONLY way to invite GH to the party) is clear.
best, Peter…
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011
a problem with SSL. Any Ideas? I am using the following code:
import json,httplib connection = httplib.HTTPSConnection('api.parse.com', 443) connection.connect() connection.request('GET', '/1/classes/MY-CLASS', '', { "X-Parse-Application-Id": "MY-APP-ID", "X-Parse-REST-API-Key": "MY-REST-API-KEY" }) result = json.loads(connection.getresponse().read()) print result
I Get the Following Messages:
Runtime error (IOException): Authentication failed because the remote party has closed the transport stream. Traceback: line 280, in do_handshake, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5.0 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\ssl.py" line 120, in __init__, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5.0 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\ssl.py" line 336, in wrap_socket, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5.0 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\ssl.py" line 1156, in connect, "C:\Program Files\Rhinoceros 5.0 (64-bit)\Plug-ins\IronPython\Lib\httplib.py" line 3, in script Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance! -Zach…
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…
t. So here we go!
1. Honeybee is brown and not yellow [stupid!]...
As you probably remember Honeybee logo was initially yellow because of my ignorance about Honeybees. With the help of our Honeybee expert, Michalina, now the color is corrected. I promised her to update everyone about this. Below are photos of her working on the honeybee logo and the results of her study.
If you think I'm exaggerating by calling her a honeybee expert you better watch this video:
Thank you Michalina for the great work! :). I corrected the colors. No yellow anymore. The only yellow arrows represent sun rays and not the honeybee!
2. Yellow or brown, W[here]TH Honeybee is?
I know. It has been a long time after I posted the initial video and it is not fun at all to wait for a long time. Here is the good news. If you are following the Facebook page you probably now that the Daylighting components are almost ready.
Couple of friends from Grasshopper community and RADIANCE community has been helping me with testing/debugging the components. I still think/hope to release the daylighting components at some point in January before Ladybug gets one year old.
There have been multiple changes. I finally feel that the current version of Honeybee is simple enough for non-expert users to start running initial studies and flexible enough for advanced users to run advanced studies. I will post a video soon and walk you through different components.
I think I still need more time to modify the energy simulation components so they are not going to be part of the next release. Unfortunately, there are so many ways to set up and run a wrong energy simulation and I really don’t want to add one new GIGO app to the world of simulation. We already have enough of that. Moreover I’m still not quite happy with the workflow. Please bear with me for few more months and then we can all celebrate!
I recently tested the idea of connecting Grasshopper to OpenStudio by using OpenStudio API successfully. If nothing else, I really want to release the EnergyPlus components so I can concentrate on Grasshopper > OpenStudio development which I personally think is the best approach.
3. What about wind analysis?
I have been asked multiple times that if Ladybug will have a component for wind study. The short answer is YES! I have been working with EFRI-PULSE project during the last year to develop a free and open source web-based CFD simulation platform for outdoor analysis.
We had a very good progress so far and our rockstar Stefan recently presented the results of the work at the American Physical Society’s 66th annual DFD meeting and the results looks pretty convincing in comparison to measured data. Here is an image from the presentation. All the credits go to Stefan Gracik and EFRI-PULSE project.
The project will go live at some point next year and after that I will release the Butterfly which will let you prepare the model for the CFD simulation and send it to EFRI-PULSE project. I haven’t tried to run the simulations locally yet but I’m considering that as a further development. Here is how the component and the logo looks like right now.
4. Teaching resources
It has been almost 11 months from the first public release of Ladybug. I know that I didn't do a good job in providing enough tutorials/teaching materials and I know that I won’t be able to put something comprehensive together soon.
Fortunately, ladybug has been flying in multiple schools during the last year. Several design, engineering and consultant firms are using it and it has been thought in several workshops. As I checked with multiple of you, almost everyone told me that they will be happy to share their teaching materials; hence I started the teaching resources page. Please share your materials on the page. They can be in any format and any language. Thanks in advance!
I hope you enjoyed/are enjoying/will enjoy the longest night of the year. Happy Yalda!
Cheers,
-Mostapha
…
currently within a fake euphoria framework - blame China/UAE) and a potential decision about doing/developing this or doing that … well …anyway … read and enjoy.
AEC matters: The good, the bad and the ugly.
The bad news: Rhino is NOT suitable for the job (although some use it … but only in the sense that people use Modo for the so called “hard modeling”). By job I mean things up to shop drawing level + specs + you and me (we call it Final level) – nothing to do with sketches and outlines of some abstract “schematic” topology.
The ugly news: The so called Design-Construct approach gains exponentially momentum especially in countries the likes of China/UAE/BRICS (95% of the whole AEC activity worldwide happens there). DeCo means: AEC engineers deliver some kind of study in a preliminary level and the main contractor splits (outsourcers) the job and assigns the study completion AND the construction to various sup-constructors. That thing appeared first – in a large scale - in Dubai 15 years ago. This means that the era of Sergio Pininfarina is over and out: welcome anonymous Toyota designer. In plain English: days of construction corporations fast replacing practices. Dead men walking.
The good news: All AEC related apps (Revit, AECOsim, Allplan and the likes) are in a lethargic state as regards the brave new world (based on the archaic level driven organization schemas etc etc). Of course they all claim the exact opposite and point that support BIM (nobody mention PLM) better than the other guy. But the 21st century – helped by 2 forthcoming unavoidable crisis (a) about shortage of water (b) about transition from carbon to hydrogen economy – isn’t about bureaucracy: think cost/resources optimization and “fitness” rather than China/UAE type of liquid trend. Days of euphoria fast approaching the Wall.
Top to bottom and visa versa.
Old days Titans (Oscar, Mies, Walter, Pierre Luigi, Frank, Eero, blah blah) outlined things (mostly using crayons) and the rest were struggling to translate these in reality in an one way vector like process : Top to bottom that is. These days the inverse gains momentum : when in the whole consider the part … validate … redo … validate … redo. This means bottom to top geared with top-to-bottom. In plain English : child imposes rules to parent and parent imposes rules to child. This means classic MCAD feature/history modeling (CATIA/NX/MS). This is something that Rhino can’t do (not to mention that Rhino is a surface modeler – a rather critical fact).
The parts that are bigger than the whole.
Go there ( http://www.behance.net/gallery/2885057/a-myriad-of-cables) are inspect the whole thing: it’s a parametric nightmare made with the other guy (Generative Components – slower than a Skoda + bugs + why bother?). But the whole (masts and membranes and the likes) means nothing here: focus to the details that are critical for connecting this with that. Complex feature driven solids that are made with internal (on a per se basis) parameters (like fillets required for casting or radius for cable anchoring) whilst they comply with external rules/parameters (cable angles, topology clash issues etc etc). So the whole outlines possibilities … and the part either can follow…or the part must change…or the whole must change. Can you do that with GH/Rhino? And if not what’s missing? (lot’s of things to be honest).
Some other "similar" things:
The narrow picture.
I agree with what others already said and with pretty much all Ola’s points – especially the visual drag-and-drop path mapper (i.e. a visual data manipulator so to speak) and the enable/disable components in groups capability.
Some other suggestions:
A multi canvas capability. As things are right now…it’s like working in Rhino in one view (rather unsuitable I guess). In fact …since overlapping views they don’t work in Rhino…well…you know, he he.
A working auto profile arrangement capability (non twisted Loft/Sweep and the likes). Worth 1Bn dollars that one.
Ability to locate components that caused this or that in the Rhino view: meaning a 2 way communication approach : GH makes things happen in Rhino and things can indicate their cause in the GH canvas.
A robust collection of components that bake stuff in nested blocks (emulating some primitive assembly/component way of thinking). Why may you ask? Well … the whole objective is to talk to CATIA (via STEP) don’t you agree? CATIA makes things happen in real-life not Rhino.
A robust collection of components that can create real-life parametric tensile membrane solutions (get some inspiration from FormFinder: useless because it’s academic but good to point the way). Membranes (and geodesics) are the future.
I could continue at infinitum but IMHO the big picture is worth 12345,67 “focused” GH improvements.
May the Force (the dark option) be with us all.
…