uier momento del diseño de un modelo 3D y este se readapta sin necesidad de redibujar la zona alterada.
Otra de las principales características del trabajo paramétrico es que nos permite automatizar procesos de trabajo o diseño. Esto quiere decir que, con procesos sencillos, podemos generar geometrías complejas y siempre justificadas en función de unos parámetros que nosotros definamos; lo que, en cierto modo, elimina la arbitrariedad en el diseño y nos arma de argumentos en la toma de decisiones de proyecto. Por otro lado, se pueden generar texturas y patrones de manera aleatoria o variable en función de atractores.
Tras la realización de este workshop, el alumno será capaz de desarrollar sus propias gramáticas, con la confianza que da comprender los términos básicos de programación sobre los que se apoya todo el sistema de trabajo de Grasshopper.
Grasshopper nos abre todo un mundo de posibilidades en el diseño y en la fabricación digital.
PARA QUIÉN
El workshop está dirigido a estudiantes y profesionales de la arquitectura, el interiorismo, la ingeniería, el diseño de producto, el diseño industrial y, en general, perfiles creativos y disciplinas artísticas que quieran introducirse en el mundo del diseño paramétrico.
Es recomendable tener conocimientos previos de Rhinoceros (nivel básico) ya que hay algunos conceptos que pueden ser útiles para un mejor seguimiento del workshop.
…
ically i needed a 3d weighted voronoi to create a controllable screenwall. I looked here and in other sites trying to find an answer, but all what i found were some approximation of the issue. So you know:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/weighted-3d-voronoi-possible?commentId=2985220%3AComment%3A950591
This is an old post in the fórum (even before the gh comp. voronoi exists) about the theme, although i have understood the theory of weighted voronoi, it was impossible to me to carry this logic to a grasshopper algorithm, even though i tried.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/voronoi-customization-with-attraction-points
This is a short post about the theme that seems have achieved a solution. I don't know if it was my lack of knowledge (probably yes), but i could not uderstand how the presented solutions solved the problem. :/
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/looking-for-weighted-voronoi?id=2985220%3ATopic%3A49548&page=1#comments
This is the longer post about the theme i have found. It presents a very good approximation to 2d weighted voronoi and i could manage it, but i could not find a way to carry this logic in a 3d voronoi.
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/differentiated-voronoi
In this post i learned that weighted voronoi creates hyperbolic curves instead of straight lines, what made me wonder if it would be possible doing a 3d weighted since i needed flat surfaces in the cells. However in this same post i read something about power diagrams, what brings me to the next two links.
http://graphics.uni-konstanz.de/publikationen/2005/voronoi_treemaps/Balzer%20et%20al.%20--%20Voronoi%20Treemaps.pdf
https://www.uni-konstanz.de/mmsp/pubsys/publishedFiles/NoBr12a.pdf
These links are of two papers about the using of voronoi in the development of a treemap (i'm not entering in the details of treemaps here, but the papers give a good introduce if you are interested). Well, i learned that basically are two types of weghted voronoi diagrams: Additively weighted (this one creates the hyperbolic curves) and Powered weighted (this one creates straigh lines). In the papers the authors present their scripts to achieve the diagrams. I have studied python a little bit, but my lack of knowledge (again) in scripts did not allowed me to understand their complex algorithms.
http://www.laratomholt.nl/ghscripts.html
The last link (finally) have some grasshopper scripts of a researcher named Lara Tomholt. One of these scripts is about weighted voronoi in 2 and 3d and achieved a very good approximation of it. However it still has some voids between the cells, what is undesirable to my objectives.
Sorry for this big research historic, but since the theme has been very discussed, i thought it was a good idea show this "state of art" for a better understanding before showing my developments.
Joining all this knowledge achieved through research and a bit of what i already knew in grasshopper, i have been trying to create my weighted voronoi in 2 and 3d cells. I started trying to make adjustments in the scripts found in the links and honestly don't remember exactly how i got to this file attached, probably a consequent of the very try and error.
The script is based in the conectivity of the deulanay mesh component.
Basically i used the connections of one point to create influence in the points connected to it by scaling a line between them, while using the original point as the center of scale and using the new end points as inputs in the voronoi component.
This approach solved the problem for a 1 cell weighting, to make it work in more than 1 cell i used a recursive looping with hoopsnake for make it always consider the new set of points while adding the weights (better understandable looking the script).
This approach seems to work until the penultimate point (probably because of the nature of the delaunay mesh connections i guess), but most important could be used with the 3d vornoi component.
In the file attached i used a range component to create a increase in the weight of the cells aligned with the sequence of the points referenced, of course other methods can be used to create more dynamic weights in the cells.
Well, i'm not sure if my approach is the correct one to solve the problem, neither if it is really a solution at all, so i'm open to suggestions, reviews and comments that can validate or not this aprroach, also open to new solutions in the case.
Sorry for the big post and the not very good english.
Thank you for Reading. :)…
os3D + Grasshopper3D + Maya + Advanced Plugins & Demo Toolkits]
// Level
Basic, Intermediate & Advanced
(Previous parametric design knowledge not obligatory - Studio is adaptive to basic & advanced users)
// Agenda
The workshop aims to provide a detailed insight to ‘parametric design’ and embedded logics behind it through a series of design explorations using Rhinoceros & Grasshopper platforms, along with understanding of data-driven design strategies. An insight to Computational Design and its subsets of Parametric Design, Algorithmic Design, Generative Design and Evolutionary Design will be provided through presentations, technical sessions & studio work. Studio work will be focusing on modulation of geometry and iterative form using Parametric Design methods that will lead to explorations of spatial geometries that can be articulated as architectural constructs or abstract artistic interventions. There will be a demonstration of Fluid Form Modelling using Autodesk Maya on Day03.
The 1st batch of workshop in London took place in January 2020 with an exploratory learning output for ~20+ participants that travelled from different parts of the world to be a part of 3-day workshop titled Parametric Modulations. V2.0 is the evolved workshop with new toolkit add-ons for the 2nd batch and demonstrative tools & examples for future use of participants to get a deeper understanding of Computational & Parametric Design.
// Methodology
The 3-day studio / workshop shall focus on inculcating the following aspects as a part of curriculum:
Computational Design Techniques & Parametric Design
Data, Mathematics & Geometry
Geometry Rationalization
Iterative Form Development
Digital simulation of forces
Environmental Analysis (Tool-kits & Example files for future use)
Collaborative Design Exercises to understand application of the learnt tools
Documentation and Presentation
Hands-on Demonstration of Maya (Polygonal Mesh Modelling)
The workshop is suitable for beginners, intermediate as well as advanced users of these tools and very helpful for anyone planning to start their Masters in UK as this 3-day workshop would serve as a bootcamp to kick-start anyone's journey in Computational Design.
…
is an emerging research area that exploits the principles and logic of natural systems in the design of the built environment. Sandworks* investigates the development of a computational design system informed by the sand self-formation behaviour. The knowledge objective is to understand the process of coding the material physical behaviour that follows the geometrical constraints of developable, ruled and hyperbolic surfaces formed by sand. Through physical and digital form-finding exercises, the workshop will explore the relationships between material and its shaping processes in the generation of form in parallel to theoretical lectures and discussion on cutting edge approaches of computational thinking, design and fabrication in architecture and design. Participants will be introduced to ruled based design thinking through digital design and fabrication systems as well as physical modelling and prototyping techniques.. The workshop aim is to provide an understanding framework of how such processes occur in nature and find their translation in the design of the artificial. *This research started at the Architectural Association school of architecture in London exploring the design and fabrication techniques of sand tectonic system and now it is pursued at ENSA Paris-Malaquias focusing on the development of the machinic morphogenetic possibilities of sand self-formation with robotic distribution of material through addition, subtraction and deposition techniques.www.sandworks.org /// Application To apply, please follow this link to fill the application form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1n_LN2svFTT79kCqndxznKRj4PX8J8__FVNKvjiHTeJU/viewform /// Fees* 1700 EGP for students / 2000 EGP for graduates and young professionals * 20 % discount for early registration and payment before 22 nd of August 2014 more info on the workshop webpage: http://www.encodestudio.net/#!sandworks/c1nn1…
of Crete. Chania can be divided in two parts: the old town and the modern city which is the larger one. The Visiting School will revisit the way by which the built environment has been put together and will explore design possibilities which can be applied in order to improve connectivity and functionality in the city. Interactive design coupled with generative form-finding techniques towards the fabrication and assembly of a 1-to-1 scale prototype will be investigated.
Each year a series of software tutorial sessions takes place in order to allow participants develop their basic skills on controlling models parametrically and on producing interactive presentations. These sessions also embody manufacturing techniques enabling a hands‐on experience on the realization of an architectural design. In addition, a set of lectures and special events are carried out to enable the participants advance their understanding in matters of new design anatomies and begin developing a theoretical background on topics including machinic control, computational space, and complexity in systems, and innovative urban design approaches.
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 AA Greece includes but is not limited to Maya, Rhinoceros, and Grasshopper.
• Design seminars and lecture series support the key objectives of the programme, disseminating fundamental design techniques and relevant critical thinking methodologies.
Eligibility
The workshop is open to architecture and design students and professionals worldwide.
Accreditation
Participants receive the AA Visiting School Certificate with the completion of the Programme.
Applications
The deadline for applications is 20 September 2016.. No portfolio or CV, only requirement is the online application form and fees. Online application link:
https://www.aaschool.ac.uk/STUDY/ONLINEAPPLICATION/visitingApplication.php?schoolID=377
For more information:
http://greece.aaschool.ac.uk/
Contact:
Alexandros Kallegias (Programme Director):
Alexandros.Kallegias@aaschool.ac.uk…
d. If what you say is correct about the small difference between the global horizontal and direct/diffuse calculations in the MENEX model, than the discrepancy likely has more to do with the difference between the approximation of human geometry in the MENEX model (plane or cylinder) and the human geometry approximation in the SolarCal model (some coefficients derived from radiation studies of mannequins). I noticed some fairly large differences between using a suggested global horizontal method and a direct/diffuse method with the SolarCal model (differences on the order of 20%) but I imagine that this is because a mannequin human geometry is more sensitive to changes in solar orientation than a cylinder or plane. All of this is very good to know.
Yes, I guess this might be the case: the sensitivity of the SolarCal model to different parts of human body surfaces and surfaces areas.
Am I correct in understanding that you recently corrected the grey-body assumption about sky temperature in the Thermal Comfort Indices component with this commit? https://github.com/mostaphaRoudsari/ladybug/commit/a2a37b6dccc4e750...
The previous incoming long-wave radiation was derived by Ångström for clear sky conditions. The added correction "(1 + 0.22*((N/10)**2.75))" is a fractional cloudiness factor by Maykut and Church (I attached the publication below which mentions it).
So the emissivity coefficient of the (cloudy) sky is now:
epsilon_sky = (0.82 - 0.25*(10**(-0.094*0.75*e))) * (1 + 0.22*((N/10)**2.75))
I do not think that you could use the same value to calculate the sky temperature with Stefan-Boltzmann law, as the incoming long-wave radiation has been derived from the air temperature (2 meters above the ground), not the sky temperature. So by:
skyTemp = (La / [epsilon_sky * sigma])^0.25 - 273.15
One would get the air temperature from which La is derived, not skyTemp.The possible reason why SolCal Mean radiant temperature is currently getting similar values to Thermal Comfort Indices Mean radiant temperature could be that fact your epsilon_sky is almost equal to 1 (0.95), so it depends solely on La.I spoke with Dr. Blazejczyk, and got a publication on different sky temperature models. Apart from upper mentioned Swinbank, Berdahl-Martin, Melchor it has a lot more methods with mutual comparison of their resulting values. I attached it below.…
eps are represented by multiple surfaces so the discussed techniques are not fully workable.
the attached files include my test gh and a solid file to input. I have been able to map a suitable voronoi latticework onto the brep surface - but then I'm stuck. I cannot offset the curves on the brep and create a useable strut surface that way. I cannot intersect swept pipes with the brep surface to create surface patches that could then be joined.
I need some elegant ideas; I seem to be going down a rabbit hole at the moment where I am doing ever more complex workarounds for the grasshopper capabilities. (A case in point; the rail sweep is not working for me for closed 3D polylines, so I am having to cut them up and sweep and cap the segments. Ugh).
Example input brep
Curves on brep - but no simple offset / trim mechanism
Potential rail defining strut trim - but no way to do so...
Brep / rail intersect - but no way to turn this into a surface...
Programme
Voronoi%20strut%20on%20brep%20test.3dm
Voronoi%20struts%20-%20volume%202.gh
…