ind that a ?^@&@% door for your next 7 series (avoid that car at any cost) is rated about 10M (the so called development cost) whilst the whole car may require 500++ M. Did you know that the software used in a 7 series exceeds 70M lines of code? Therefor ... blah, blah.
Back to real-life things:
One "suitable" solution for flattish stuff the likes that you've captured is:
1. Make a BoundingBox and make a Point3d grid using, say, the bottom 4 corners (a single dimension tree)..
2. Declare a nullable Point3d grid [ DataTree<Point3d?> hitsTree = new DataTree <Point3d?>();].
3. Shoot a Ray3d from each point using some Vector3d (for instance using p4 - p0 out of the box points). If the Ray hits a brepface get the point if not put a null. That way you have a tree of equal List sizes and "combining" things (Points) for your patterns is greatly simplified [you can use the crude try{} catch{} approach].
4. If all these sound a bit freaky to you ... post a flattish test case (with different U/V) and give some hints about what "pattern" means to you.
best…
cal sweep2 issues as well ...er...cause a lot of cyclic logic in order to finally achieve a proper periodic surface.
Work is currently in a chaotic and incomplete state (that single Canvas is clearly a no no in complex definitions, not to mention the known cluster issue).
Back to GeoGym stuff (> use Saved View "GEO GYM ..." in order to locate your stuff).
Stupid Questions section:
1.OK, that's just a test: playing with mesh relaxation stuff in order to get the gist of the component.
2.Observe that without inputing a "proper" mesh (try the "default" mesh component) the algo can't actually make a meaningful quad mesh.
3.In fact the 1B thing here could be an algo that makes "as few as possible quads - in size" (you did a similar thing with triangles if I remember correctly). Notice that the boundary here is not an issue by any means.
4. But assuming that I've missed the way to do it (quite possibly) by what means can we do further work with the resulting mesh? (output is a single branch thing...thus how we can use it for classic truss creation etc etc).
5. By what means can we relax u/v in nurbs surfaces? (i.e place them "evenly", kinda like 3 above ).
Best, Peter
…
ld be covered in concrete. I input the specs of the architectural fabric. E=.75 v=.3 p=610 and the thickness is .009. Whenever I run the study, and I've done so on several different meshes, it always produces several errant points. What do these points mean. Also when you divide 1 by the deflection does that convert the deflection to meters. I am also curious about the self weight input. Am I correct in assuming that a self weight of 1 applies 100% of all forces onto the model. I have been a big fan of your software and of your ideas and I still use topostruct since it's such a creative tool. I would like to learn more about doing studies in millipede but I need a little more info on what the various optimization setting should be and what tolerance values to apply. There are several inputs for these but I am unsure how to make adjustments. I have tried to follow your manual and demo files and they have been very helpful in getting me to this point but it seems there are some details I still don't get. If you can help explain or if you'd prefer I can provide you with the file to review. thanks …
uments:
1. You are targeting CATIA don't you? (not exactly tomorrow but ... soon) and/or SolidWorks (hello C# haven't we met before?).
2. You MUST deal with nested block instances instead of what you are trying to do right now (I'm talking about the real MERO things not abstract Lines and points). This is not doable with GH components I'm afraid (but it's rather easy with code).
3. You MUST deal with RDBMS in order to keep track with what's going on in your company per project per case per designer (who sells that bolt? what's his cat name? is he a reliable supplier? what I'm doing in life? ... that sort of "queries"). At this point: CATIA is 1% CAD things and 99% PLM stuff (Product Life cycle Management). We do want that since it's 21st century running don't we?.
I hear you: but these are 3 arguments ... indeed but ... hey who's counting? he he.
Method:
A. This def attached has a very simple C# that gets mesh Pts and makes a nice U/V style collection of points (DataTree in plain English).
B. Then we go to that umbrella sticks thingy: we can calculate anything (already the thing does "some") plus your collections of divided points (with the right way, he he) VS a given node: you said (Skype) that you want to calculate angles with these (from 2 to 6) in mind: obvious since you are doing real-life MERO things.
C. Then we could calculate the appropriate Planes for PlaneToPlane transformations: get a nested instance definition (the red things that you've showed to me yesterday) placed at 0,0,0 (Plane.WorldXY) and put in in every Plane collection related with every node (clash defection is an obvious must).
Case resolved, closed: what about that Vodka?
More in Skype
…
one can gide me a little bit!
Is about a building with worm shape, with rings structure defined by curves and a resultant skin surface.
My problems are this:
1. i have problems to undestand the Sweep1 command, so, to make the section profil of the rings structure, i took the PFrames component but i am not too much convinced about this, because i need to put many control points to have a uniform surface.
2. i don't want to cover all the worm with the skin surface, only the half (it will be something like a roof) and after many mistakes and frustation, i decide to bake the V curves of the surface, and Loft a new one with them. I am not agree at all with this solution, because i cannot change the shape of my building anymore!:-(. but maybe is not possible to do this, i really don´t know.
3. My ilussion is, after solve this basic problems, become the simple surface in a voronoi surface with holes, because i don't understand how it works. i read many discussions in the forum, but i cannot make it. i want to define a voronoi 2d surface and apply it to the surface of my project.
i hope that my explanations are enough clear to understand!!
many things to solve and many many many things to i have to know.
thank you very much!!…
th 0 ({0;0},{0;1},{0;2}...{0;5}) into one branch and all the ones starting with 1 ({1;0},{1;1},{1;2},{1;3}) into another branch. The number of items vary a lot so I cant simply split the list after a certain number of items.Lets say I have a list looking like this:
{0;0}
x1
{0;1}
y1
{0;2}
z1
{1;0}
x2
{1;1}
y2
The list Im after should look something like this:
{0}
x1
y1
z1
{1}
x2
y2
Does anyone know if there is a way to do this without scripting in C# or anything similar?
Thanks,Viktoria
…
s to load from file (from 0 to 1)
So this post is about masks.
Rhino Point Clouds can store information such as : location of a point, it's color and normal vector. It is common to store intensity values, but it is not supported in Rhino.
Mask characters :
x y z - location
u v w - normal
r g b - color
a - intensity
Let's say that your file is formatted such as :
10.000 ; 12.000 ; 20.053 ; 0.243
which means it stores location and intensity values.
A proper mask will inform Load Cloud component how to read those values
x;y;z;a
The first non-alphabetic character in the mask is automatically interpreted as the separator.
Same masks work with Save Cloud component. Note that it has D input which when set to True will make it surround all the values in double-quotes.
"10.000" ; "12.000" ; "20.053" ; "0.243"
Cloud Load doesn't care about those double-quotes, it just ignores them and proceeds to read the values without them.…
ain AutoDesk products).
See this? A 2400 seat WIP Opera Project. Imagine an outer envelope kinda a "shell" made by custom MERO members (a bit stupid engineering solution I confess) ... and various interior "shells" (concrete) that define the in-topology : audience/stage/workshops/activities/etc. About 70 heavily nested 3d files compose the total solution (in Final Level Study, meaning nuts and bolts Level of Detail).
On first (a bit Academic) consideration the envelope could be "easily" made by Grasshopper and/or Generative Components (patterning of some sort) by arranging MERO nodes and truss members across some V/U derived bezier curves ....the only problem is that the solution should...er...be a real-life arrangement of real-life nodes and truss members (not to mention real-life milling axis etc etc).
What about interoperability between the Architectural and the Structural Design team? What if the Structural Analysis/Feasibility study/etc indicates that the solution is not viable?
All that ... before designing some real-life skin support system (final skin: custom metal panels + 100mm Foamglass + membranes + custom alu support system + VM Zink).
All that...having in mind that some specialized manufacturer (like Donges AG) could receive structured 3D data that could/should comply with the way that MCAD apps - the likes of NX/CATIA - do business.
And that's the CATCH 22 these days: no non MCAD app supports any kind of meaningful assembly-component entity management. See for instance how naif Microstation is on that matter...not to mention Rhino (Rhino can't even manage different collection of entities on a per View basis - not to mention Dynamic Clips etc etc etc).
So the 1M question is : what serve power without control?
He He…
difference consists of.
An Evolutionary Solver/Genetic Algorithm is an implementation of Metaheuristics. Metaheuristics tend to be flexible solvers, applicable to a wide variety of problems, fairly easy to implement, but slow. Other examples of Metaheuristic algorithms would be Random Search, Scatter Search, Simulated Annealing and do on. These algorithms are often modelled on physical or biological processes.
Simulated Annealing for example simulates the physical process of annealing (who'd have thunk it), which is basically the slow cooling of a material which allows it to settle into a crystalline lattice, i.e. a low energy distribution of all the atoms. I'm currently adding an SA solver to Galapagos, and in fact just yesterday managed to get the first successful run: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWtYLv-4oP0
Metaheuristics are especially useful for those cases where little is known about the problem ahead of time. If the problem search-space is mathematically well defined (differentiable, especially), then you can use more targeted algorithms such as the Newton-Raphson method, Pareto-search or Uphill search. You can still use these methods on non-differentiable search-spaces, but it involves sampling the local region to death to get an estimate of the differential. This can be a very costly enterprise, especially in high dimensional search-spaces. In a two-dimensional search-space you'll need 3 to get a lame estimate and 4 to get a halfway decent estimate and 8 to get a good estimate. In three-dimensional search space you already need 26 samples, and the number of samples grows exponentially with higher dimensions.
If you have a specific problem you're trying to solve, Metaheuristics are probably not the best solution, even though they may be easiest to program. Rhino uses something akin to Newton-Raphson for certain problems and that's fast enough to run in real-time.
Divide-and-Conquer algorithms are also quite popular. Sometimes they are called Binary-Search or Tree-Search algorithms as well. Their basic premise is to sample the search-space at a few intervals (but enough to capture the needed detail), then find two neighbours with promising values and sample again in between these two. Then repeat. Each new iteration typically doubles accuracy, which is great because then you only need ~30 ~40 iterations to get an answer as good as possible with double-precision floating point accuracy. However not all problems lend themselves well to this sort of search and in higher dimensions it starts getting slow with disconcerting alacrity.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 1:54am on August 15, 2011