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
ack to .ghx?
This is in relation to a discussion I've been having with David Rutten & Scott Davidson about GH consuming memory in a relatively large GH definition (~. I think what I've learned from this is that one should limit the size of the GH file, or put some incremental stops in the definition to limit the length of calculations that it runs at once. Is this a valid conclusion?
The GH file we're talking about is 7Mb & the Rhino file is about 120Mb, but when working w/ the GH def. I try to only keep about 2 curves turned on.
Here's a summary of the discussion:
Hi Mike,thanks for sending it over. I've been fiddling with the file for about 10 minutes and it climbed from 1.7 GB to 1.9GB, but then I've been switching previews on which means more meshes get calculated so you'd expect a higher memory consumption. It is possible we're leaking memory, but if you're working for hours on end, memory fragmentation might also explain part of the increase. Basically, memory gets fragmented just like disks get fragmented after prolonged use, difference is that memory cannot be defragmented unless you restart the application and allow it to start with a clean slate. I'll try and find any leaks we may have missed in the past.Goodwill,David
──────────── David Rutten
On 09/03/2011 06:19, Mike Calvino wrote:
Thanks very much David for the quick response. I've attached the files zipped. I can't figure out what's doing it. After working in the file for awhile, the memory usage in the Windows Task Manager climbs . . . it's gotten to 1.57+Gb before I exited GH & Rhino5Wip & let it dissipate, then restart & work for awhile before it does it again. It probably takes like 4 or 5 hours before it gets that high. That's the highest it's gotten, & that only happened while I was working in a Rhino file that had all of the elements baked into it - turned off at least, but it still climbed to 1.57+Gb. It seems to climbs when you work in the file & move around in both the GH def. & the Rhino file. Like turn on a few of the Extr components at the right end of the "StandareRibExtuder" groups, you can watch the MemUsage go up, but when you turn them off, it does not go down. - goes up fast at this point. Maybe I need to figure out how to do the definition with fewer components, I'm sure that's part of it, but I must confess, I think I'm still early on in the learning curve.I really hope that this is not operator error on my part & I do apologize up front if it is. I have done a disk cleanup, I have tried excluding .3dm & .ghx files from my NOD32 antivirus, no change. I hope you can find something.Let me know if you have any trouble with the files.See if you find anything & please let me know . . . thanks!Cheers! --Mike CalvinoCalvino Architecture Studio, inc.www.calvinodesign.com
…
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…
this occasion, but it could be converted for DT in no time). Requires some minutes more as regards ... some things, but the usual update is due to some days.
Bad news: it's C#
Good news: User's Manual :
1. That thing (the C#, not me) after sorting (in a "sequential way", so tho speak) the panels (their order was chaotic) allows you to start the massacre by locating a focus of interest (and the user controllable +/- Range derived from it).2. The Range is variable (obviously) and takes care not to exceed the indices of the panel list (OK, that's elementary).
3. If you click the right button (Sadistic Q: where is it? he he) things are deleted and a new constantly self-updating list is your new List. Thus the massacre of panels is totally controllable. An autoZoom thing is also included (free of charge, but it's a bit nerve braking). Zoom factor is variable as well.
4. Then you move over (via the index slider) and start the massacre again. Notice the change of Range.
5. If you turn begin to false (initialization) and then begin to true > start all over again.
6. The other C# thing allows you to increment the index slider in a rather more convenient way. It's a bit weird: it uses delegates (A delegate is an object that knows how to call a method) and events (An event is a construct that exposes just the subset of delegate features required for the broadcaster/subscriber model - but don't ask what this means, he he) in order to talk with your slider (with a defined NickName) and perform the required value control.
NOTE: without realizing it you've just (indirectly) asked one of the most important questions even exposed in this Noble Forum. I hear you : what question? Well ... wait some days for the mother of all threads: "Total control in collections on a per Item basis"
may the Force (the dark option) be with you (and me)
best, Peter…
Rubicon (ii.e. some programming language [I would strongly recommend C#] > the Dark Side > years of pain + tears > hell or heaven?).
Back to that pile or worms of yours (I hate "simple" cases, he he).
0. if you want rounded lips ... Styrofoam is the only solution (+ sanding [buy a mask and some decent cigars ... path is long and hilly]). if not > goto 5/6.
1. by what means you think that you can shape Styrofoam? Do you have access to some CNC foam cutter? Or the only tools that you have are ... 2 hands and a knife? (or a thermal cutter). Accuracy is a BIG issue here: chances are that panels won't "fit". Solution is available in the forthcoming V3.
2. male "protrusions" on Styrofoam is kinda 3rd marriage > AVOID at any cost > this would end up in tears.
3. female ones are safe ... thus we need a proper "insert stripe" that must be compatible with the Styrofoam adhesive and strong enough to hold the pieces until the glue cures (it takes time, there's no instant Styrofoam adhesives around). Maybe aluminum (hard to cut by hand) or balsa (very expensive) or plywood (best option).
4. Some CNC foam cutters they can't shape the female "crevices" > be prepared (a thermal tool may(?) cut the mustard).
Note: panels made with Styrofoam look miserable because reality and theory differ. They also look miserable as well (and kitsch and miserable).
5. making the panels with (marine) plywood ... well this yields far superior accuracy and therefor aesthetics but (a) yields max panel thickness constrains, (b) introduces max panel dimensions constrains (c) yields packing issues [waste material] and (d) requires a totally different "connection" approach: it doesn't make sense to do some female crevice ... unless the plywood is very thick (expensive + heavy).
Note: Designing (pro option) self supporting "rib" reinforced sandwich composite panels ... well this is a bit far and away from what you can handle at present time.
So ... I've suspended the male/female thingy until you decide the final policy: it's the material/detailing that should dictate the method(s) AND the whole design and not the other way.
This is what we call bottom-top design approach (dinosaur Architects follow the top-bottom: disastrous + naive + naive + naive + avoid).
6. Plan ZZTop: make a stand alone autonomous perimeter frame per panel (marine plywood: imagine "thickening" these abstract beams shown inwards per panel) then join these frames by means of bolts (easy) and fill the "gaps" with Styrofoam (hmm). Note: you can reinforce the frames by a variety of means (say: a secondary "beam" sub-structure) achieving a rather elegant all overall solution.
This is the best solution by roughly 666 miles.
…
a machine that is light and very sturdy. I have taken my Macbook Pro all around the world, carry it with me every day, even dropped it a few times and its still totally fine. Its thin and light.
2) You get some actual support for your hardware even a few years down the line. My Macbook Pro is from 2012 and I can still walk in to any Apple Store and get help with it, which I have done many, many times in different places around the world - I never had to show a receipt or was charged any money for help. There is no PC/Laptop manufacturer in the world with anything close to that, because companies like Asus, Dell, etc. bring out dozens of new versions of laptops every year, so its much harder to service them after a few years.
3) This is the most important one, which usually people forget when they say that Macbooks are overpriced: Resale Value. If you have ever tried to sell an old PC/Laptop (I have a few times), you will know how little value they have even after just 2-3 years. Macbooks retain their value very well and even after 4 years you can still get 50% of your original price.
4) Of course you can install Windows on it and it runs perfectly. I have MacOS and Windows on it and both run absolutely fine. On the Windows side I have Rhino+GH, Maya and a few others. Having Windows is good, because some software still only runs on Windows (looking at you, 3DSMax!). Most other software also runs on MacOS. In the interest of sanity it is great to have an alternative to Windows for all the day to day stuff, like Mail, Calender, Photos, Presentations, etc. that just always works.
5) As for performance: Yes, Macbook Pros dont necessarily have the latest and greatest in graphics cards (the rest is on par with PC laptops), but unless you want to play games you will not need it. VRay RT can do GPU rendering, but you wont get great performance from a Notebook GPU anyways and it doesnt make sense to do rendering on a laptop (especially since you have a workstation). You could get one of the older Macbook Pro Retina Late 2013 or Mid 2014 models with the GTX750M by Nvidia, which will be usable to render using VRay RT, but of course not huge performance. Better to invest in a good used graphics card for your workstation like an Nvdia GTX980ti, which is the best value for money for GPU rendering right now (lots of used ones available).
So at least consider also getting a Macbook Pro. You can buy refurbished models (depending where you are) and they are like new, but a lot cheaper or even get an older one thats used. It will be a worthwile investment.
Take it from someone who has used dozens of PCs and Macs in my lifetime and have to do the IT support here at work (where we also use both).
I still have my Macbook Pro Retina from 2012 and its still running perfectly, super fast, and I can use Rhino and GH for huge files, do GPU Rendering with Octane Render and all sorts of other heavy computing stuff.
Hope that helps.…
Added by Armin Seltz at 11:12am on September 19, 2016
he Cordyceps. Maybe some of you find this helpful/useful.
So basically, the Cordyceps is a physical module with 4 knobs and 1 slider. The knobs give an output between 1 and 1000, while the physical slider outputs 0-359. And of course, for this physical module I wrote a plugin to communicate with it. The knobs are intended to be the variables that modifies the design, while the physical slider is intended to be connected to the camera component.
Here I will put up "the recipe" for all to make their own module. You will be able to download the plugin as well.
Please send me a message if you want the 3D-files for the knobs, the box and slider knob. They've been made to directly 3D-print.
Plugin:
https://github.com/zakadjeb/Cordyceps/blob/master/Cordyceps/Cordyce...
Code for Arduino IDE:
https://github.com/zakadjeb/Cordyceps/blob/master/Arduino/_Arduino_...
What you need:
1x - Arduino (Leonardo, UNO or whatever)
4x - Potentiometers
1x - Sliding potentiometer
1x - Breadboard
Bundle of jump wires.
1. So, a potentiometer is a variable resistor, which is basically a component that changes the resistance between the voltage and the ground.
If A is supplied with 5V then B must be connected to Ground. The W will give "read" the resistance, and thus should be placed in Analog input (A0-A5) on the Arduino. The slider potentiometer works the same way.
2. Now connect the 4 pots to each their Analog input. The slider is supposed to be in A4. So to make sure:
A0: Knob1
A1: Knob2
A2: Knob3
A3: Knob4
A4: Slider
3. Now it's time to connect the voltage! Using the breadboard, the voltage can be sent through 1 line, the Ground as well. It should be quite easy to connect them.
4. Now, download the Arduino IDE and copy-paste the code I supplied above. In the IDE, you need to let it know which Arduino you're working with, and which port is should send the script.
5. Almost there. Download the plugin. Open the port you're using through the plugin. Set Start to True and the Cordyceps should be within you.
This recipe will be updated!
Let me know if there are any issues.
// Zakaria Djebbara…
he Cordyceps. Maybe some of you find this helpful/useful.
So basically, the Cordyceps is a physical module with 4 knobs and 1 slider. The knobs give an output between 1 and 1000, while the physical slider outputs 0-359. And of course, for this physical module I wrote a plugin to communicate with it. The knobs are intended to be the variables that modifies the design, while the physical slider is intended to be connected to the camera component.
Here I will put up "the recipe" for all to make their own module. You will be able to download the plugin as well.
Please send me a message if you want the 3D-files for the knobs, the box and slider knob. They've been made to directly 3D-print.
Plugin:
https://github.com/zakadjeb/Cordyceps/blob/master/Cordyceps/Cordyce...
Code for Arduino IDE:
https://github.com/zakadjeb/Cordyceps/blob/master/Arduino/_Arduino_...
What you need:
1x - Arduino (Leonardo, UNO or whatever)
4x - Potentiometers
1x - Sliding potentiometer
1x - Breadboard
Bundle of jump wires.
1. So, a potentiometer is a variable resistor, which is basically a component that changes the resistance between the voltage and the ground.
If A is supplied with 5V then B must be connected to Ground. The W will give "read" the resistance, and thus should be placed in Analog input (A0-A5) on the Arduino. The slider potentiometer works the same way.
2. Now connect the 4 pots to each their Analog input. The slider is supposed to be in A4. So to make sure:
A0: Knob1
A1: Knob2
A2: Knob3
A3: Knob4
A4: Slider
3. Now it's time to connect the voltage! Using the breadboard, the voltage can be sent through 1 line, the Ground as well. It should be quite easy to connect them.
4. Now, download the Arduino IDE and copy-paste the code I supplied above. In the IDE, you need to let it know which Arduino you're working with, and which port is should send the script.
5. Almost there. Download the plugin. Open the port you're using through the plugin. Set Start to True and the Cordyceps should be within you.
This recipe will be updated!
Let me know if there are any issues.
// Zakaria Djebbara…
new component "OSM 3D roof"):
2) Simplified 3D roads can be created by using the network of OSM polylines (through new component "OSM 3D road"):
3) 3D forest.Up until now, Gismo supported generating a single 3d tree whenever such tree was present in openstreetmap.org database. Now it is possible to generate 3d trees in forest areas, by randomly positioning the 3d trees (through new component "OSM 3D forest"):
4) Boolean 3d shapes.Gismo's "OSM 3D" component generates shapes as parts: for example, if a building has irregular shapes across its height, they will all be created individually. Trying to merge them with Grasshopper's "Solid Union" component can sometimes fail.New Gismo "Rhino Boolean Union" components tries to overcome this issue by using a much better Rhino version of this command.
5) Library of common GIS color palettes (gradients).A single component containing 22 of the common color palettes used in GIS applications as ArcGIS and QGIS. For example: elevation, aspect, precipitation...
6) Url to location.Thanks to idea by Alex Ng, it is possible to extract location from a link of the following map websites: Openstreetmap, google maps, bing maps, wego.here, waze:
Version 0.0.3 can be downloaded from here:
https://github.com/stgeorges/gismo/zipball/master
Example files from here:
https://github.com/stgeorges/gismo/tree/master/examples
New suggestions, testing and bug reports are welcome!!…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 1:39am on January 29, 2019
r." I'm sorry to hear that, I take the interface and ease-of-use rather seriously so this sounds like a fundamental failure on my part. On the other hand, Grasshopper isn't supposed to be on a par with most other 3D programs. It is emphatically not meant for manual/direct modelling. If you would normally tackle a problem by drawing geometry by hand, Grasshopper is not (and should never be advertised as) a good alternative."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."Grasshopper ships with about 1000 components (rounded to the nearest power of ten). I'm adding more all the time, either because new functionality has been exposed in the Rhino SDK or because a certain component makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Adding pre-canned components that do the same as '8 or 10 components strung together' for the heck of it will balloon the total number of components everyone has to deal with. If you find yourself using the same 8 to 10 components together all the time, then please mention it on this forum. A lot of the currently existing components have been added because someone asked for it."[...] has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others."Again, GH was not designed to be an alternative to these sort of modellers. I don't like referring to GH as 'parameteric' as that term has been co-opted by relational modellers. I prefer to use 'algorithmic' instead. The idea behind parameteric seems to be that one models by hand, but every click exists within a context, and when the context changes the software figures out where to move the click to. The idea behind algorithmic is that you don't model by hand.This is not to say there is no value in the parametric approach. Obviously it is a winning strategy and many people love to use it. We have considered adding some features to GH that would make manual modelling less of a chore and we would still very much like to do so. However this is such a large chunk of work that we have to be very careful about investing the time. Before I start down this road I want to make sure that the choice I'm making is not 'lame-ass algorithmic modeller with some lame-ass parametrics tacked on' vs. 'kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on'.
Visual Programming.I'm not exactly sure I understand your grievance here, but I suspect I agree. The visual part is front and centre at the moment and it should remain there. However we need to improve upon it and at the same time give programmers more tools to achieve what they want.
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."Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Whether or not a conversion between two data types makes sense is often dependent on the actual values. If you plug a list of curves into a Line component, none of them may be convertible. Should I therefore not allow this connection to be made? What if there is a single curve that could be converted to a line? What if you want to make the connection now, but only later plan to add some convertible curves to the data? What you made the connection back when it was valid, but now it's no longer valid, wouldn't it be weird if there was a connection you couldn't make again?I've started work on GH2 and one of the first things I'm writing now is the new data-conversion logic. The goal this time around is to not just try and convert type A into type B, but include information about what sort of conversion was needed (straightforward, exotic, far-fetched. etc.) and information regarding why that type was assigned.You are right that under some conditions, we can be sure that a conversion will always fail. For example connecting a Boolean output with a Curve input. But even there my preferred solution is to tell people why that doesn't make sense rather than not allowing it in the first place.
Sliders."I think they should be optional."They are optional."The “N” should turn into the number if set."What if you assign more than one integer? I think I'd rather see a component with inputs 'N', 'P' and 'X' rather than '5', '8' and '35.7', but I concede that is a personal preference."But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly."Agreed.
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."I was thinking of just zooming in on a component would eventually provide easier ways to access settings and data."Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?"It's almost impossible for me to know whether these things are 'unlikely' in any given situation. There are probably some cases where a suggestion along the lines of "Hey, this component is about to run 40,524 times. It seems like it would make sense to Graft the 'P' input." would be useful.
Integration."Why isn't it just live geometry?"This is an unfortunate side-effect of the way the Rhino SDK was designed. Pumping all my geometry through the Rhino document would severely impact performance and memory usage. It also complicates the matter to an almost impossible degree as any command and plugin running in Rhino now has access to 'my' geometry."Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset."That's the plan moving forward. A lot of algorithms in Rhino (Make2D, FilletEdge, Shelling, BlendSrf, the list goes on) are not available as part of the public SDK. The Rhino development team is going to try and rectify this for Rhino6 and beyond. As soon as these functions become available I'll start adding them to GH (provided they make sense of course).On the whole I agree that integration needs a lot of work, and it's work that has to happen on both sides of the isle.
Documentation.Absolutely. Development for GH1 has slowed because I'm now working on GH2. We decided that GH1 is 'feature complete', basically to avoid feature creep. GH2 is a ground-up rewrite so it will take a long time until something is ready for testing. During this time, minor additions and of course bug fixes will be available for GH1, but on a much lower frequency.Documentation is woefully inadequate at present. The primer is being updated (and the new version looks great), but for GH2 we're planning a completely new help system. People have been hired to provide the content. With a bit of luck and a lot of work this will be one of the main selling points of GH2.
2D-ness."I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen?"I don't fully disagree. A lot of geometry is either flat or happens inside surfaces. The reason there's no shelling (I'm assuming that's what you meant, there are two Offset Surface components in GH) is because (a) it's a very new feature in Rhino and doesn't work too well yet and (b) as a result of that isn't available to plugins.
Organisation.Agreed. We need to come up with better ways to organise, document, version, share and simplify GH files. GH1 UI is ok for small projects (<100 components) but can't handle more complexity.
Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback, I really do, but I want to be honest and open about my own plans and where they might conflict with your wishes. Grasshopper is being used far beyond the boundaries of what we expected and it's clear that there are major shortcomings that must be addressed before too long. We didn't get it right with the first version, I don't expect we'll get it completely right with the second version but if we can improve upon the -say- five biggest drawbacks (performance, documentation, organisation, plugin management and no mac version) I'll be a happy puppy.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com…