the pipe component .I have one curve ,but Pipe component outputs two pipes .This guide curve have two kinks . Pipe component fails at one of them .
Bug #3
I guess this bug may have been fixed .
Wish #1
I hope adding an "reverse list" option to the right-click menu .I think this would be useful (at least for myself).
Wish #2
I hope the SimplifyTree component would clear the zeros located at the end and middle of branch in condition the branches have same length.For example, I have a tree looks like :
A = {0;1;0} B = {0;1;0;1}
C = {0;1;0;0;1;0;0;0}
After simplify ,I get:
A = {1} B = {1;0;1}
C = {1;0;0;1}
And if the tree structure is something like:
A={0;0;1;0}
B={0;0;1;1}
C={0;0;1;2}
After simplify ,I get:
A={1;0}
B={1;1}
C={1;2}
But If the tree is:
A={0;0;0;0;0;0}
B={0;0;1;0;1;0}
C={0;0;1;0;2;0}
I get:
A={0;0}
B={1;1}
C={1;2}
WIsh #3
I came across conditions that there is no direct way to handle some Datatree matching problems . And now I think I find what's the problem :GH now lack the capability to make cross reference between lists/branches .For example, I have two trees ,the first one have two branches {0}&{1}, the other have three branches{0}&{1}&{2}.Now GH would do:
what I want is :
If this can come true ,I can say it would be very very very useful . I just have a coarse idea on how to do that: Like () wrap items,{} wrap branches, then [] wrap trees .
Say I have a tree [0] ,which have three brabches{0},{1},{2}. So [0]=[{0};{1};{2}] or [0]=[{0},{1},{2}]
If this is ruled, the following fomula is meanningful:
[0]=[{0}] (this means tree[0] just have one branch)
[0]=[{0;0;0};{0;0;1};{0;0;2}]
[0]=[{0;0};{0;1};{0;2}]=[{0;0;0};{0;0;1};{0;1};{0;2}]After that, Maybe we could match [{0};{1}] and [{0};{1};{2}] very easily (Longest List;Shortest List;Cross Reference) ??
I tried to explain the concept of "tree" to my friends ,but I am confuzed somewhere myself .For example ,how could we have a tree including branches {0},{0;0}and{0;0;0} at the same time??{0} should be the biggest tree trunk,and {0;0} is part of {0} .{0;0;0} is just the smallest trunk and store the least data inside .How could the biggert trucks are empty while only the smallest branches contain items ?(David drawed a datatree that tell this,remember??)
But if this idea is acceptable ,then I could make a fairy tale about tree to them :
(Long long ago...)
[0] is a tree ,[1] is a tree.
{0},{1},{0;0}.{0;1;0} are branches.
{0}=(0,1,2,3,4,5) is branch.
[0]= [{0;0;0};{0;0;1};{0;0;2] is a standard tree .
[0]=[{0;0;0};{0;0;2};{0;0;3] is a pruned tree.
[{0};{0;0};{0;0;0}] is an illegal tree .
Gh is lenient enough to allow the existence of illegal tree .
Gh is lenient enough to allow the existence of empty trees& empty branch&null items.
We can use PathMapper to transform an illegal tree into a legal one and vice versa . We can use PathMapper to do any things to tree&branch&item.
Wish #4
wish for Split List component : it would have a wrap option just like many other components.In this way , we can split a list of data at -1 .I think this would be useful .
wish #5
wish for a Preview toggle component .See picture below (it's fake).
this toggle look mostly like the boolean toggle, but it have a input param by which we can control the preview logically and smartly .
When there is no input ,we can control swith the preview with a double click action .This toggle component could control all gh geometry overriding the global setting .The link curve between toggle and target works just like the galapagos.
Wish #6
Wish for adding arc angle output to both Arc 3pt and Arc SED components.This would make things easier sometimes .
Wish #7
Many times I were puzzled that a same gh script would perform perfect if the input is single surface but buggy while the input is more than one surface .After debuging many times ,I just found that if one or two component of the script do things smarter ,this kind of bugs would never happen again !! Simply saying:we need a optional datatree match behavior. Say I have two datatree [{0;0};{0;1}] and [{0;0;0};{0;0;1};{0;0;2};{0;0;3};
{0;1;0};{0;1;1};{0;1;2};{0;1;3}] Normally {0;0} matchs {0;0;0},{0;1} matchs other branches (Longest List behavior).Now I need {0;0} matchs {0;0;0},{0;0;1},{0;0;2},{0;0;3} separately and {0;1} matchs {0;1;0};{0;1;1};{0;1;2};{0;1;3} separately .I cant describe this matching rules accurately but it's very obvious .I hope you can understand the meaning .
I remember David said once that he would not change anything about the datatree matching rules in order to avoid destroy people's production work .And that is my bottomline too .What I want is when I need one component to match the input datatree in this way ,I can switch it (just it ) into this mode (Assuming these is a "xxx mode" option in component's right-click menu ). In this way ,All the exist Gh def would not be destoryed.
PS. I am not carping but I found the DivideKink param input of Divide Curve component is useless except adding a segments output .
…
curve or locus] of a segment AB, in English. The set of all the points from which a segment, AB, is seen under a fixed given angle.
When you construct l'arc capable —by using compass— you obviously need to find the centre of this arc. This can be easily done in GH in many ways by using some trigonometry (e.g. see previous —great— solutions). Whole circles instead of arcs provide supplementary isoptics —β-isoptic and (180º-β)-isoptic—. Coherent normals let you work in any plane.
Or you could just construct β-isoptics of AB by using tangent at A (or B). I mean [Arc SED] component.
If you want the true β-isoptic —the set of all the points— you should use {+β, -β} degrees (2 sides; 2 solutions; 2 arcs), but slider in [-180, +180] degrees provides full range of signed solutions. Orthoptic is provided by ±90º. Notice that ±180º isoptic is just AB segment itself, and 0º isoptic should be the segment outside AB —(-∞, A] U [B, +∞)—. [Radians] component is avoidable.
More compact versions can be achieved by using [F3] component. You can choose among different expressions the one you like the most as long as performs counter clockwise rotation of vector AB, by 180-β degrees, around A; or equivalent. [Panel] is totally avoidable.
Solutions in XY plane —projection; z = 0—, no matter A or B, are easy too. Just be sure about the curve you want to find the intersection with —Curve; your wall— being contained in XY plane.
A few self-explanatory examples showing features.
1 & 5 1st ver. (Supplementary isoptics) (ArcCapableTrigNormals_def_Bel.png)
2 & 6 2nd ver. (SED) (ArcCapableSED_def_Bel.png)
3 & 7 3rd ver. (SED + F3) (ArcCapableSEDF3_def_Bel.png)
4 & 8 4th ver. (SED + F3, Projection) (ArcCapableSEDProjInt_def_Bel.png)
If you want to be compact, 7 could be your best choice. If you prefer orientation robustness, 5. Etcetera.
I hope these versions will help you to compact/visualize; let me know any feedback.
Calculate where 2 points [A & B] meet at a specific angle is just find the geometrical locus called arco capaz in Spanish, arc capable in French (l'isoptique d'un segment de droite) or isoptic [curve or locus]
of a segment AB, in English. The set of all the points from which a segment,
AB, is seen under a fixed given angle.…
connected hyperspace where architecture can be fluid, flexible and vivid, yet the aspect of materiality requires more attention.
Action-designed structures begin to move beyond the utopian proposals of the 20th century’s manifestos and hold a place in the world of realized designs. The AA Athens Visiting School aims to bring users closer to the built environment while revisiting habits of designing, building and experiencing space through materiality. Understanding materiality and form as a ‘unified whole’, the programme integrates manufacturing techniques through the experimentation fabrication of prototypes at a 1:1 scale.
Prominent Features of the workshop/ skills developed
Participants become part of an active learning environment where the large tutor to student ratio allows for personalized tutorials and debates.
The toolset of the Athens VS includes but is not limited to Processing and Grasshopper for Rhinoceros, as well as design analysis software.
Participants gain hands-on experience on digital fabrication.
Design seminars and a series of lectures support the key objectives of the programme, disseminating fundamental computational techniques, relevant critical thinking, theoretical understanding and professional awareness.
Applications
1) You can make an application by completing the online application found under ‘Links and Downloads’ on the AA Visiting School page. If you are not able to make an online application, email visitingschool@aaschool.ac.uk for instructions to pay by bank transfer. 2) Once you complete the online application and make a full payment, you are registered to the programme. A CV or a portfolio is NOT required.
The deadline for applications is 28 June.
Location AKTO College – Athens Campus 11Α Evelpidon Street (Pedion Areos) Athens, 113 62, Greece
Fees
The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £695 per participant, which includes a £60 Visiting membership fee. Fees do not include flights or accommodation, but accommodation options can be advised.
Eligibility The workshop is open to current Undergrad and Graduate architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Adobe Creative Suite, Rhino 5.
For more information, please visit:
http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/VISITING/athens
http://ai.aaschool.ac.uk/athens/
For inquiries, please contact:
alexandros.kallegias@aaschool.ac.uk…
) Course Fee: Professional EUR 825,- (+VAT), Student EUR 415,- (+VAT)
Led by plug-in developer and structural engineer Clemens Preisinger, along with Zeynep Aksoz and Matthew Tam from the expert Karamba3D team, this three-day workshop will focus on methods of setting up structural systems in the parametric environment of Grasshopper. The participants will be guided through the basics of analyzing and interpreting structural models, to optimization processes, and how to integrate Karamba3D into C# scripts.
This workshop is aimed towards beginner to intermediate users of Karamba3D. However, advanced users are also encouraged to apply. It is open to both professional and academic users. For beginner users of Rhino and Grasshopper, there will be an optional introductory course one day before the Karamba3D course.
Karamba3D 1is a parametric structural engineering tool which provides accurate analysis of spatial trusses, frames, and shells. Karamba3D is fully embedded in the parametric design environment of Grasshopper, a plug-in for the 3D modeling tool Rhinoceros. This makes it easy to combine parameterized geometric models, finite element calculations, and optimization algorithms like Galapagos.
Course Outline
Introduction and presentation of project examples
Optimization of cross sections of line-based and surface-based elements
Geometric optimization
Topological optimization
Structural performance informed form finding
Understanding analysis algorithms embedded in Karamba3D and visualizing results
Complex workflow processes in Rhino, Grasshopper, and Karamba3D
Places are limited to a maximum of 10 participants with limited educational places. A minimum of 4 participants is required for the workshop to take place. The workshop will be canceled if this quota is not filled by October 28. The workshop will be taught in English.
Course Requirements
Basic Rhino and Grasshopper knowledge is recommended. An introductory course is offered.
No knowledge of Karamba3D is needed. Participants should bring their own laptops with Grasshopper and either Rhino 5 or Rhino 6 installed. You can download a 90-day trial version of Rhino. Karamba3D ½ year licenses for non-commercial use will be provided to all participants.
Please register here……
Added by Matthew Tam at 6:38am on September 13, 2019
ll geometry.
The difference with programs like Inventor is that they are made for production, regardless of the fabrication method. I won't go into detail about that, and instead focus on the modeling process.
In this little model, the starting point actually is a bit obvious, the foundation.
The only contents in the 3dm file are 27 lines. These indicate the location of each footing, and the direction of the tilt of each column. Everything else is defined in GH with the use of numbers as input parameters.
Needless to say, instead of those lines you could obviously generate lines and control the number of columns and panels, hence establish their layout, with any algorithmic or non-algorithmic criteria you please. That marks a major difference between GH and Inventor.
You can generate geometry with Inventor via scripting/customization (beyond iLogic), with transient graphics for visual feedback similar to GH's red-default previews. However Inventor's modeling functions are not set to input and output data trees. I won't go into detail on that, but suffice to say that the data tree associativity of GH was for me the first major difference I noticed. I've used other apps with node diagram interfaces like digital fusion for non-linear video editing since the late 90's, so the canvas did not call my attention when I first started using GH.
Anyways, here's a screen capture of the foundational lines:
In the first group of components, the centerlines of the rear columns are modeled:
And the locations in elevation for connection points are set. Those elevations were just numbers I copied from Excel, but you can obviously control that any way you please. I was just trying to model this quickly.
The same was done for the rear columns:
The above, believe it or not, took me the first 5 hours to get.
Here's a screen capture of what the model and definition looked like after 4 hours, not much:
If you're interested, next post I can get into the sketching part you mentioned, which is a bit cumbersome with GH, but not really.
I wouldn't say that using GH to do this little model was cumbersome, it just needed some thinking at the beginning. You do similar initial thinking when working with a feature-based modeler.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 12:44am on February 24, 2011
Hi,
I have a similar problem, I tried the solution with Rhino 4sr9 and Rhino 5 (64bit), with the first works fine but the second doesn't work and gives me an errorThanks in advance for your reply
three categories, each one corresponding to different shapeType_ input:- polygons (shapeType_ = 0): anything consisted of closed polygons: buildings, grass areas, forests, lakes, etc
- polylines (shapeType_ = 1): non closed polylines as: streets, roads, highways, rivers, canals, train tracks ...- points (shapeType_ = 2): any point features, like: Trees, building entrances, benches, junctions between roads... Store locations: restaurants, bars, pharmacies, post offices...
So basically when you ran the "OSM shapes" component with the shapeType_ = 2, you will get a lot of points. If you would like to get only 3d trees, you run the "OSM 3D" component and it will create 3d trees from only those points which are in fact trees. You can also check which points are trees by looking at the exact location on openstreetmap.org. For example:
Or use the "OSM Search" component which will identify all trees among the points, regardless of whether 3d trees can be created or not.However, when it comes to 3d trees there is a catch:
Sometimes the geometry which Gismo streams from OpenStreetMap.org does not contain a "height" key. Or it does contain it but the value for that key is missing.OpenStreetMap is free editable map database, so anyone with internet access and free registered account on openstreetmap.org can add features (like trees) to the map database. However, regular people sometimes do not have height measuring devices which are needed for specific objects as trees.So "OSM 3D" component will generate 3d trees from only those tree points which contain a valid "height" key.However, a small workaround is to input a domain(range) into the randomHeightRange_ input of "OSM 3D" component (for example the following one: "5 to 10"):
This will result in creation of other 3d trees which do not have defined height, by randomizing their height. randomHeightRange_ input can also be applied to 3d buildings, and it is definitively something I need to write a separate article on.
In the end it may be that nobody mapped the trees in the area you are looking for.
After you map a tree to openstreetmap.org then it will instantly be available to you or any other user of Gismo. I will be adding some tutorials in the future on how this can be done. But probably not in the next couple of weeks.
Let me know if any of this helps, or if I completely misunderstood your issue.…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 3:52am on February 8, 2017
ns, which have a certain distance from the edge of the flat. I have a circuit, but the problem is the missing plane there and also some body. I need help relatively quickly. to the system: I work with Rhino 5 and Grasshopper version 28/09/2012, build 0.9.0014 here schematically the black bar should be flat and gray, the body thereon
…
deform into rhombic dedocahedrons when they reach equilibrium.
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CubicClosePacking.html
I was trying to model sphere lattice constrained within a boundary box. When inflated, they would not intersect with each other; they would stay in place; and would be malleable just enough to expand and fill in the gaps in between the spheres.
I started off with the help of this thread here(Thanks for those contributed!). As I understood, there was a bug in Kangaroo2. Solver can't handle more than one item plugged in. So I tried to understand David's Stasiuk's Script and adopted it with a few variations, please see gh file attached.
In the first 5 - I've used David Stasiuk's C# component-variable pressure (posted on June 9, 2015 at 12:25am): 'No. 4.5' being the most successful simulation so far(inflation value is kept very low so that they would not intersect);
although I realised I made some math mistake in setting the close packing grid.(could be checked by plugging voronoi3D to see if the area of the rhombic faces are regular)
No. 6-7 I tried with Kangaroo2 components.
After consulting my tutor(Andrei Jipa)'s help, I realised the following changes could be made:
- The definition posted by David on June 8, 2015 at 4:47pm with constant pressure would've worked better.
- Icosahedrons with WbCatmull(Quad divisions) would result in more even load distribution. With wbloop, vertices more concentrated at poles.
- Load in dir Z could be omitted. Andrei has suggested to use lengths(line) in Kangaroo 2 as 'pressure' instead. And I am trying to improve the grid; and maybe try with David's constant pressure definition. I will keep you guys posted of the progress!
I am new to the parametric world, comments/advice very much appreciated! :) Zhini
…
ing results and I think it is based on the assumption of small displacements. That’s why I want to try with LaDeform.
But doing this I met some problems. I tried to experiment it on the small examples that are provided with Karamba:
1.LaDeform in load-controlled behavior
I know Karamba has mainly been created make form-finding and not properly precise calculations, but I’d like to evaluate deformations of my structure under certain loads (load-controlled). It is said to let it in Default value for MaxDisp (-1).
[Rhino view for deflection of the rope]
In this example derived from a Karamba example (Large_Deformation_Rope.gh), the programs shows different ways to get approximately equal max deflection. But, getting into it, I realized Load Multiplier for gravity is different from one model to another (-3.237 for Analyze TH1 and -134 for LaDeform). So what is the interest of the example if the quite similar shape of deflections are not got under the same loadings? (quite different loadings indeed)
Doesn’t it show on the contrary that LaDeform algorithm does not work properly, if you need to change the load multiplier?
The Grasshopper file is shown below.
2.MaxDisp
When I use the model is “max disp”, I command the deformation, but how can I get the value of the virtual force exerted (which I don’t know because it is now imposed)? What is its link with the imposed deflection?
Otherwise I can’t figure how to use it with displacement-controlled loading
3.Iterative process
As it seems impossible to use LaDeform process, I tried to test it by iterations, as you recommend it on the forum, saying that it is equivalent to an iterative Analyze Th1 process.
I tried to reproduce this loading but the result is not very enthusiastic as you can see. The Rhino file shows the progressive loading, with the corresponding Grasshopper files, where I
- disassemble the model,
- get the previous deformed model
- put in another part of the load,
- re-assemble and then calculate it on the previous deformed shape.
Do you have any idea why the answer is not the same ? (LaDeform seem to give like 5 times less for the same loadings) (and even controlling it by displacements the shapes do not fit the principle of the algorithm would let think)
[RhinView for Iterative process]
First step by analyze Th1, and result by LaDeform
4.Analyze Th1 after LaDeform?
Some tutorials of Karamba show that an analysis with Analyze Th1 is sometimes made immediately after a calculation in large deformations. What is its reason? It seems to sometimes change considerably the result. What is the sense of such an operation? Would it mean that LaDeform is not trustworthy?
ð My question is then: is there a way to make the use of LaDeform for other purposes than form-finding affordable and coherent? If I mistake using it, where?
Thank you very much for your help,
…