ents instead of code ... it could yield a nightmare of components (and a myriad of parameters). For real-life designs I would never attempt to do this without code.
2. A certain experience with Kangaroo (or some min surf other thing since using K on these ... well may be the killing a mosquito with a bazooka thing). That said I'm a great admirer of Daniel's work. But on the other hand why not?
3. A "certain" experience with trusses/space frames.
4. A "certain" experience with instance definitions (that's not doable with GH components).
5. Years of experience with parametric feature driven MCAD apps - Image35 (NX/CATIA) for designing the real-life parts (that have NOTHING to do with "abstract" concepts).
In total I would say that a similar "app" with code (excluding the min surf/mesh thing) would require 6-10 full days of work (or even more).
BTW: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/top...…
simple, there are many symetries in 3 main planes. So I used arcs rotated 45° from the main planes and I generate a pentagon which was mirrored and rotated many times.
At the end there are 24 pentagons and 8 hexagons so 32 faces, 54 points/vertex and 84 edges.
It could generate some others tessalation styles
…
th a graphic editor (GH) hosted in a CAD app that has primitive assembly/component capabilities and/or feature driven ops (Rhino). Did I've mentioned that Rhino is a surface modeler? (meaning the obvious).
3. Imagine a "seed" collection of assemblies related with various membrane components made in SW. Say: geometry (prior solid ops) and parameters (the feature driven part of the equation, in most of cases managed with some RDBMS). You should port these to GH (a variety of ways exist for that) and create the bare minimum of "solids" in GH as instance definitions. There's 2 main reasons to do that: (a) effectively communicating back on an assemply/component schema (via STEP) and ... (b) achieving manageable collections when in GH. These are critical for clash detection (when outlining some topology in GH, therefore NEVER work just with "curves") and "variation" control of some sort (up to a point). Of course for high class designs (where the devil hides in the details) this is NOT the best imaginable solution ... you'll need CATIA for such an integrated (all in one) procedure. On the other hand many could (wrongly) argue that CATIA is expensive (rather naive argument if a company has a certain turnover).
4. So, in general I would strongly suggest to use instance definitions of items in some sort of "intermediate state" of detail (an 100% undoable task without code) structured in such a way (classic assembly/component MCAD mentality blah, blah) that SW could take benefit of a possible modified "base topology" and proceed by finishing variations of the given assembly (feature driven stuff as usual).
5. Then export (STEP 214) back portions of the assemblies (and parameters used) to R/GH if and when this is required (for instance for BIM disciplines ... but Rhino is not a BIM app, nor it would ever be).
6. If you are familiar with code matters ... start thinking the whole puzzle that way, if not my advise is to find someone to design such a "procedure" (say an "app") using solely code, but this is not a task for the inexperienced by any means.
best, Peter…
omponents and Revit means Dynamo.
Both are masterminded by the very same fella (Robert Aish: an ex Bentley R&D head, then Autodesk paid more [life sucks]).
AECOSim eats Revit for breakfast but has a far steeper learning curve ... meaning that the masses would opt for Revit.…
sites the likes of Code Project etc etc) that may fit to your workflow/goals. Also the available literature/printed manuals/e-manuals/books etc etc.
3. Take into account the quality of the available editors (like VS etc etc). That said the "build-in" GH editor is a bit of a crap (but it's OK for smallish/not complex coding).
4. Most importantly: // computing is the holly grail these days (and it would become the standard in the years to come: either via trad CPU cores or via CUDA/Tesla type of stuff)... thus take into account ... well ... the obvious.
BTW: If 1 is true and there's some workflow around that involves many apps ... try to write code that is as "GH neutral" as possible.…
sive:
It is using up all or a lot of the cycles on the app UI thread. So there's no computing power left over to handle mouse events, keyboard events and paint events.
It is using up more memory than the computer physically has, so Windows starts paging (i.e. using the hard-disk as a memory space). Since disc read/write access is orders of magnitude slower than RAM read/write speed, this will slow down everything.
Some other application is using a lot of computing power/memory and Windows deems that app more important than Rhino.
8GB might not be enough if Rhino needs more than 5GB or so to run. Windows will take up ~2, other apps will take up ~1 unless they are also doing heavy lifting, so you have about 5 left over for Rhino+Grasshopper+++. It is not difficult to make Grasshopper use lots of a memory, but its also not demanded. If you generate 5000 complicated Brep objects, they are going to have to be stored somewhere.
However I cannot comment from here about whether your problem is processor or memory related, or both.
…
er ... but ... Autodesk has other plans in mind.
Given the opportunity the main reason to use a solid modeller is ... well .. the fact that when you arrive in a polysurface (in a surface modeller) this signals the end of the road whilst in the solid apps it's just the beginning.
That said the best solid thingy out there is Siemens NX closely followed by CATIA (SolidEdge and SolidWorks are both owned by these 2).
The best way to get the gist of these things is to find some friend who (hopefully) knows his onions and ask for a 5 minutes demo.…
tructures)
Bad news: real-life AEC trusses are far and away from lines.
Ugly news: Rhino is NOT an AEC app by any means nor it would ever be. For AEC app I mean the known 3 (Allplan, Revit and my favorite: AECOSim) and/or proper MCAD apps (like CATIA/NX). In plain English : without exporting (meaning (a) bake in nested blocks + (b) export via STEP) proper structured data (assembly/component) this WIP case is absolutely useless.
why may you ask.
well ... trusses are made with numerous shop drawings like this, that's why:
more soon.
best, Peter…
some weird engine, you know, he he) IS NOT like designing plain vanilla AEC things.
Therefore features/calculation methods/capabilities as found in MCAD apps (considered off topic by many in our trade) are mandatory for certain types of designs.
Anyway and if we forget FEA stuff, currently I have 3 C# goals:
(1) master the art of controlling the placement of existed blocks in GH defined topology(done),
(2) master the art of baking blocks(done) and
(3) master the art of baking heavily nested blocks that NX/Catia can understand (progress is slow).
…