Search Results - 广东11选5体育彩票开奖结累查询-『8TBH·COM』下载青蛙彩票网--2023年3月19日6时33分12秒.H5c2a3.rynzzgon4-cc

Comment on: Topic 'Education/Career Advice...': essarily architectural. As you can guess from the tone of my previous response, I finished with school and had a hard time finding a job that focused on the technologies I delt with all through undergrad and grad. During grad school I was working with ASGvis (the makers of V-Ray) so I got exposed to the software side of things both on the support/management side and the development side. Now I'm off on my own doing development projects like RhinoHair, a few others, and some custom plugins for clients. Not necessarily what I thought I'd be doing after grad school, but I'm certainly enjoying it more than the "standard" practice of architecture. I definitely understand "creating" a program. I did both my undergrad and grad at Catholic U here in DC, and although there was some ground work laid in regards to fabrication, I was one of only two or three students spearheading a lot of the scripting/GH/parametric stuff and some of the topics that go along with them (algorithmic design, adaptive systems, advanced geometry). One thing that was incredibly helpful for me was to pair up with the most advanced and forward thinking professor(s) that you can and take their studios, electives, and/or help out with their research. I was lucky enough to pair with a professor who had been at MIT and really encouraged me to explore my interests and sharpen my technicial skills. It might also be a good idea to stick your head in some other departments, probably the math and engineering ones, or even biology and economics if there are some forward thinking professors. Talk to some people and get a different perspective on things. When I went to the ACADIA conference in 2008 it really opened my eyes to some of the potential influence from those different arenas. Fabrication wise, I'd really try to focus more on milling (3 axis is fairly standard, 5 axis if you can get access) than 3d printing. Printing is a lot of fun, but ultimately we're not printing buildings (yet), so some of the milling processes will be much more valuble. If your school doesn't have those kind of facilities on campus (either in the Arch dept or engineering or something), then contact a local fabricator and see if you can work together somehow or someway. You'd be surprised and how many fabricators are interested in talking to architects.…; Added by Damien Alomar at 3:13pm on February 8, 2010

Comment on: Topic 'Random Diagrid Help!!': ...hmm... points across the facade edges are not included (or may be some) and thus the whole thing is the art of pointless. 2. See the 1a unfinished part ... that defines internal boundaries for that purpose - then you need to create points across the edges, random reduce them and merging the list with the other points...blah blah. 3. That way each facade could yield structural members that touch the edges (where the biggest HEB/columns are expected to be). Obviously nodes are shared between facades with a common edge - the best logical approach for obvious real-life reasons. 4. The whole approach is stupid : here we need some Hoop snake "loop" control (that could take into account the critical connection angle constrain) in order to achieve a "progressive" deployment of the diagonal members in order to satisfy structural requirements and ... hmm...aesthetics. Free espresso for everyone is an added bonus. 5. Bottom to top design mentality is urgently required here: mastermind some 3d conceptual arrangement of nodes keeping in mind ... well...just 345,67 different real-life factors (but you could combine insulation and fireproofing if you use my favorite material: Foamglas - name with with one "s"). That way you can define the critical deployment planes : i.e. diagonal rigidity members, some facade aluminum system and floor main perimeter I-Beams MUST be in different planes. I'll be back with a more stupid version of that thing. may the Force ...blah blah …; Added by peter fotiadis at 1:52am on April 15, 2014

Comment on: Topic 'Fibonacci': ncluded 3) using a freaky thing that "makes" Planes in order to do ramps (spot the Vodka option = Mobius + antigraviity OFF). Don't touch the freaky things: for the moment just go and play with this palatable portion (GH components, nothing to fear he he): depending on choice in gates: Paranoid (Mobius "shifted in Z") sane (using corrected Planes): not so sane: What we have learned so far? Well ramps (and most of other things) ... it's about Planes (coordinate systems) you know. Again: this is for fun/demo ONLY. I'll prepare a dedicated def for your case soon. have fun, be brave …; Added by peter fotiadis at 8:58am on March 7, 2015

Comment on: Topic 'triangular mesh frame optimization': he past Architecture was the art of sketching: some "idea" with pencils/crayons + vellum paper (or with some computer) > then "others" trying to make this happen. This in general is known as top-to-bottom approach. Naive and dangerous (for the reputation/reception/acceptance of Architects/Architecture) to the max. 2. These days we work both ways: whilst some work on some "idea" (called it: "assembly") others (in sync mode) resolve the bits and nuts of that "idea" - up to 1:1 level of detail (called it "components"). This is the bottom-to-top approach. Make this your way: NEVER proceed in something whist's not EVERY bit of that something is well addressed (with at least 3-5 ways). 3. The emergence of parametric (GH, Generative Components, Dynamo) in AEC (an approach well known in MCAD word many years ago, mind) made things ... worst: the tremendous topology exploitation capabilities blinded people's mind and they are completely sucked up by the forest forgetting/by passing the critical fact that there's no forest without trees. 4. That's expected: is in the human nature to follow/admire the blink/glam and omit/skip the humble. It's the easy way you know, he he. 5. The tremendous growth of countries the likes of UAE/China/Russia made AEC things ... even worst: lot's of cash available > make us some encomium to Vanity, forget Modesty. You can replace "Vanity" with "New Frontiers" ... if you like fooling yourself. Some Academics are not capable to understand all that: if they could they would potentially operate in the field (where the pink color is rarely used) and not in fishbowl(s). Some Academics believe that an "idea" is the 99% of the whole whilst actually is less than 1%. But on the other hand anyone can do Architecture (even Architects, he he). That said (Vanity crisis) you want some other "component" options for this case of yours? (starting with "some" dollars more and ending with the mortgage the house/sell wife+kids option). take care (and kill them all)…; Added by peter fotiadis at 1:33am on March 12, 2015

Comment on: Topic 'Connect 2 surfaces with smooth transition': something (C# or components) that does a planer periodic nurbs - any shape imaginable in fact (shown a humble "figure of 8"). 2. Imagine a capability (C# only: sorry) to create a "guide" (indicative/intermediate) surface. Basically: patch the nurbs from step 1 against a variety of user controlled curves/points/cats/dogs/you name it. 3. Imagine doing this U/v quad mesh thingy (we can fill the "gaps" [C# only: sorry] with the base boundary easily - especially when triangulating the mesh - but better work as shown): 4. Imagine calling the cavalry (Kangaroo) and instructing to do ... things on that "normalized" mesh. 5. What things? Well ... like equalize edges, "inflate", planarize the quads (extra WOW stuff that one), pull it against the "guide" surface [from step 2] or some other weird ideas of mine. this is what V2 does (WIP). more soon …; Added by peter fotiadis at 4:49am on May 15, 2015

Comment on: Topic 'Tensile membrane on struts': e "amusing") - but all the intelligence is lost + the assembly hierarchy is lost + my dog is MIA as well. 2. This relates ONLY with some members of a given XFrame (meaning that you need a zillion things [or some "abstract" ones] for a relatively "large" scale tensegrity truss). Meaning: instance definitions ... or Armageddon. Meaning: some "adjustments" in a given definition having in mind similar systems (Plan B: abandon ship). 3. The fact that the 4 (ex single "tube") members are NOT planar (while ones in the previous example) AND their angles are variable as well (blue in the previous example) makes things hideously complex: we need ways to achieve levels of freedom AND some rigidity: the other way is to machine custom MERO type of stuff (balls, that is) that could host the adapters (but this means 1 zillion DIFFERENT balls). So in this variant shown the angles are managed by a "fixing" ring and rigidity by double tube [MERO type] members. Cables shown are classic Norseman stuff (Plan B: abandon ship). 4. So it's not a mystery why nobody uses that type of nonsense stuff for real-life AEC projects (other than smallish decorative things with a very limited load bearing capacity). 5. All that ... BEFORE the ultra complex system that supports the roof. STEP mailed but ... well ... what about doing some nice tensile membrane? I have a zillion "simple" defs that do that sort of stuff. best, Lord of Darkness (ex SardineLand Lord)…; Added by peter fotiadis at 11:00am on December 2, 2015

Comment on: Topic 'Equal distance between points+finding support using Galapagos': posted rather testifies that. Randomness is the virtue here NOT equality. BTW: forget completely "optimization" of the mount points et all. 2. The thing in pic is airy (quality Numero Uno on that type of stuff, especially for things with no real load bearing capability) meaning minimum profiles ... meaning FORGET wood. Use aluminum tubes (rather cheaper than wood) as follows: screw the Captain Hook "node" in some kind of machined tube end (a humble massif cylinder that is screwed or clued [Araldide 2 part Epoxy] to the tube AND machined with threads for the hook). NOTE: I could make a simple tube "adjustment" system that could allow you to build that on-the-fly WITHOUT any GH/K or anything: just start connecting variable length tubes ... er ... hmm ... randomly. This is the recommended way to do it anyway: we can't emulate art with software and even if we could: it's the art of pointless. 3. Additionally the whole conceptual aesthetics BEG for some kind of metal instead of wood. The fact that wood is aplenty in Russia doesn't justify killing trees (for any scope), anyway. 4. Using rings to "attach" the hooks ... well that could yield a highly unstable structure for more than obvious reasons. I could provide to you dozens of highly sophisticated bespoke solutions on that matter ... but they are unsuitable for this DIY occasion: I must think on a zero basis on that puzzle - allow me some time to propose the best "adapter" (easy, cheap, stable and allowing some liberties). 5. A Connectivity tree (see for instance Sandbox) can resolve with easy the equal axis worry of yours (thus: FORGET equality, just buy a hack-saw [ aluminum is very easy to "cut", he he]). All in all: I like that a lot. I'll post soon some examples related with the all overall approach (including the node, he he). You don't need Kangaroo for that (and dare I say no structural analysis IF the structure to be is "similar" in size with the one pictured). more soon, best, Lord of Darkness…; Added by peter fotiadis at 11:52pm on December 10, 2015

Comment on: Topic 'Ramer-Douglas-Peucker and Reumann-Witkam line-simplification algorithms on C#': d the Pts from 1 to the List 2 of reduced Points. 4. Sort the List VS the curve (or use some smart way to properly "insert" Pts from 1 to Pts from 2). public List<Point3d> SortPointsAlongCurve(List<Point3d> points_list, Curve sorting_curve) { points_list.Sort((point1, point2) => { double point1_t = 0; double point2_t = 0; sorting_curve.ClosestPoint(point1, out point1_t); sorting_curve.ClosestPoint(point2, out point2_t); return point2_t.CompareTo(point1_t); }); return points_list; } or public List<Point3d> SortPointsAlongCurve2(List<Point3d> pList, Curve curve) { List<Point3d> pSorted = new List<Point3d>(); List<Point3d> pClosest = new List<Point3d>(); for(int i = 0; i < pList.Count;i++){ double t; curve.ClosestPoint(pList[i], out t); pClosest.Add(curve.PointAt(t)); } Point3d pPrev = pClosest[0]; Rhino.Collections.Point3dList points = new Rhino.Collections.Point3dList(pClosest.Skip(1).ToList()); for(int i = 1; i < pClosest.Count;i++){ pSorted.Add(pPrev); int ind = points.ClosestIndex(pPrev); Point3d pNext = points[ind]; points.RemoveAt(ind); pPrev = pNext; if(i == pClosest.Count - 1) pSorted.Add(pPrev); } return pSorted; } 5. Do some Polyline or Nurbs .…; Added by peter fotiadis at 6:16am on February 5, 2016

Comment on: Topic 'Shortest Walk Tapered Branching Script': n requires ASCII format STL files, a Rhino export option. (4) Compared to the bunny, your mesh was huge so I scaled it down 1/100th, so the same maximum tetrahedron size setting would blow up the output. (5) I updated the Python to make Voronoi and Tetrahedron meshes output optional and added a file path input. So I reduced your mesh after saving as an STL, using Autodesk Meshmixer, to half the number of triangles. Before reducing the triangles I got a very fine tree that took a long time, with some segments so short it was hard to make a mesh pipe without artifacts: After reducing: Shortest walk won't yet work with the more open and direct path Voronoi diagram lines, since the target points are not the same surface mesh points and thus I can't specify each path endpoint yet. The Tetgen internal Python -q quality setting dominates internal tetrahedron size unless you specify a very small maximum tetrahedron size input such as 0.01. With such an overly fine mesh, there were quite a few internal tetrahedra, since the angle quality settings won't let it expand to bigger ones very fast away from the surface. …; Added by Nik Willmore at 3:16am on February 6, 2016

Comment on: Topic 'Seamless pattern': ill be curves not lines. But it could be fixed if necessary 1 Generation of a torus 2 Generation of Voronoi in 3d and calculation of intersection between cells and torus 3 Cut of the curves with 2 planes 4 Projection of the curves in XY planes between 0 and 2*PI 5 Scale in X of this pattern and array Main variables are Little radius of torus Number of points for Populate 3d component And the scale in X It seems quite a simple way to generate a Seamless Voronoi. Happy ? For the question about symetry, cut, rotate ... you will have to draw things , seek on internet ... figure it by yourself. …; Added by Laurent DELRIEU at 2:08pm on August 8, 2016