re my serial port was disappearing all the time when using the Leonardo on my laptop. I could only upload a sketch if I held down the reset button and then released it during the upload process... when the code was uploaded the serial port would immediately disappear again... which means I couldn't load any code which actually sent any Serial communication (which is pretty critical for Firefly). So I showed the problem to David Mellis (one of the founders of the Arduino platform who is getting his PhD at MIT, and he was confounded too). So he put me in touch with one of the main developers of the Leonardo board/platform (Zach Eveland) and I've been working with him to see if we can figure out the problem. As far as I can tell, the issue is that the Arduino driver seems to be failing on Windows 7 64-bit machines (like my laptop). He said one or two people reported similar issues during the development, but that he stopped hearing from them, so he thought it was fixed. We've tried several different things, but it seems the driver is failing at a really low-level. He's ordered a hardware USB analyzer so he can track the hardware communication between the computer and the board... but he hasn't shipped it to me yet. I'm hoping to get it resolved soon. As far as I can tell, the Leonardo is supposed to work almost identically to the Uno (it's just cheaper because it only uses 1 microcontroller... which handles both USB communication and running the code... where as the Uno has two microcontrollers on board which makes it more expensive). So, any code that runs on the Uno should (theoretically) also run on the Leonardo. Other than the code which I added to pick up the board type and load different parts of the sketch (which was a pretty significant overhaul of the firmata)... I only added a few lines to check if the serial port was available before sending the data over to Grasshopper (which seems to be required (or recommended) when using the Leonardo board. I've tested the code using the Uno and Mega and it works great... but I haven't fully tested the Leonardo support because of my machine. Apparently, this issue has only affected laptops like mine (others seem to work fine). If you're interested in testing the new version let me know and I could send it to you. You'd probably have to revert back to 0.8.0066 until I release the next version because David changed a few menu UI functions so I don't think the old version will run correctly (at least I don't think so). Anyway, let me know if your interested.
-Andy…
I am not "expert" enough, I will try to share my opinion.
Judging by the look of the building the simplest way to do it would be using T-spline to create the basic massing (like you try to sculpt a piece of rock to get the silhouette of that building). playing and tweaking mesh is easier in TSPLINE rather than NURBS (in this particular shape). after you've got the basic model done, convert it to NURBS then you can start to use GH to get some complex detail done.
one more advantage is that TSPLINE has special addon for GrassHopper. you can combo them together to get a more unimaginable result.
that is how I would approach the design.
and if you have got extra time,you could rebuild the model from scratch in GH, to get a much "tidier" model. and if next time you do a real project, it is also important to have someone to work on "smart" model like BIM. otherwise the engineer would get a massive headache when he receive your 3D model.
May be this is not a popular opinion, but I think sometimes you don't have to force yourself to build everything entirely in GH. if you can build the basic geometry in rhino, then it is better. afterall GH main function is a modelling aid for rhino. sketching it first on a piece of paper would help to get a better understanding about the geometry you are after. and then you'd know what to do.
one more thing, regarding about one reply, I wanna say, there is a big difference between designers and 3d modeller. as an architect and a designer myself, when I am given a task to design a building, sometimes I dont know what the building is going to look like at the early stage of the design., I prefer a less technical method and keep it as "concept" as possible (as there are many other things we need to think at once, name it, functionality, spacial use, structure, cost, environmental impact,etc etc etc, even politics and government stuff :P)
learning C#/VB/ or other language sure will be a point plus for you. but as dominik nuessen have mentioned, a good understanding of geometry and how it relates to the parametric design is the key point here.
because a good building is born from countless of planning and discussion, do not be afraid to be "wild" during the early stage. remember, some of the greatest architect in the world came from people who are dare enough to connect their dream into the real world.
thats all :) sorry for my bad english :)
…
ython patching via Rhinocommon CreatePatch being 7 of those seconds.
Currently, to avoid failed splits to remove the backgrounds, due to super shallow areas in skinny features that kiss the construction plane, I'm plane cutting a small amount below that construction plane, then moving the result back up.
I'm not using a Patch starting surface, as you can play with in the normal Rhino command, since it just sort of squashes broad curved mounds in ugly fashion, or else pulls them down to make ugly doughnuts everywhere around the input curves.
Details on how to use the CreateSurface command of Rhinocommon, hassles solved, is discussed here, with great all hours help from Peter Fotiadis, and I also discovered some clues from Djordje via Google, where he was massaging points into proper format:
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/python-longer-version-of-rhino-geometry-createpatch-expected
The highest level CreatePatch command doesn't accept a normal Python list of objects in a variable like the two more simple versions of the same command does. You have to regather them into a Rhino container, which is really a .NET container. I still don't know yet how to upgrade the Python parallel patch component to input the whole panoply of objects you can patch over in Rhino because I don't know what container exists to hold them all that won't break the command.
The point of this overall script is to now be able to arrange lots of mere flat surfaces, surfaces because those can define holes versus borders easily, and create real 3D single surface NURBS geometry that can then be surface morphed (equivalent of Rhino Flow Along Surface) onto other 3D models.
…
Added by Nik Willmore at 1:04am on February 27, 2016
Permalink Reply by Manuel Rodriguez 6 hours ago
Delete
yes!perfect! It has been a good example! The only thing that I would like to change is, that, instead of deform that following the control points on the surface's perimeter, I would like to deform all, with points in the shapes (in the middle of the circle for example). It is because I want, for example, the biggest circle in point 2, and the smaller circle in point 7. So, is it possible to do?
Summing up, is do the same, but changing the control points, putting them on the shapes (circles) instead the perimeter.
Thank you very much Danny and Chris, you are being really useful for me!
Thanks! Manuel
…
d doens't populate the full surface area.
Here the code of the SolveInstance part:
protected override void SolveInstance(IGH_DataAccess DA) { Surface baseSurface = null; int nrBaysUDirection = new int(); int nrBaysVDirection = new int(); DA.GetData(0, ref baseSurface); DA.GetData(1, ref nrBaysUDirection); DA.GetData(2, ref nrBaysVDirection); List<Line> lines = new List<Line>(); List<Point3d> points = new List<Point3d>();
double uPos=(double)1/(double)nrBaysUDirection; double vPos=(double)1/(double)nrBaysVDirection;
for (int i = 0; i <= nrBaysUDirection-1; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j <=nrBaysVDirection-1; j++) { Point3d pt0 = baseSurface.PointAt(i * uPos, j * vPos); Point3d pt1 = baseSurface.PointAt((i + 1) * uPos, j * vPos); Point3d pt2 = baseSurface.PointAt((i + 1) * uPos, (j + 1) * vPos); Point3d pt3 = baseSurface.PointAt(i * uPos, (j + 1) * vPos); Point3d ptM = baseSurface.PointAt((i * uPos) + (0.5 * uPos), (j * vPos) + (0.5 * vPos));
Line lnA = new Line(pt0, ptM); Line lnB = new Line(pt1, ptM); Line lnC = new Line(pt2, ptM); Line lnD = new Line(pt3, ptM);
lines.Add(lnA); lines.Add(lnB); lines.Add(lnC); lines.Add(lnD);
points.Add(pt0); points.Add(pt1); points.Add(pt2); points.Add(pt3); } }
DA.SetDataList(0, lines); DA.SetDataList(1, points); }
and further a screenshot.
Where is my mistake?
Last question:
to script the component I am using the default assmbly from Giulio Piacentino, but when I debug I got this error:
Warning 1 Member 'SimpleGrid.SimpleGridInfo.AssemblyName' overrides obsolete member 'Grasshopper.Kernel.GH_AssemblyInfo.AssemblyName'. Add the Obsolete attribute to 'SimpleGrid.SimpleGridInfo.AssemblyName'. C:\Users\matteo\Documents\Visual Studio 2010\Projects\SimpleGrid\SimpleGrid\SimpleGridInfo.cs 7 32 SimpleGrid
when I do not use this assemblt I do not get this error.
How can I fix it?
Thanks for your help and tips
Matteo…
do is to make a structural analysis of the model with Geomgym in GSA and use that gathered data to optimize the variables.
I already created the beams (with their profiles and material) and I started with creating the nodes. However, I constantly get an error when I try to open the model in GSA. GSA doesn't recognize all of the nodes I created in Grasshopper and connected to the 'create node' box from Geometry Gym.
What I need to do is find all of the intersection points of the horizontal beams, the vertical ring sections, the diagonals and the supporting beams. These supporting beams carry the weight of the actual (concrete) floor of the footbridge and the load from the floor of the footbridge needs to be loaded to the intersection of the 'supporting beams' with the 'vertical rings' (as point loads), so not with the diagonals. And I also need all points on the first and last ring section to make that nodes restraint as pins.
The division of the polygons in the vertical ring sections is recognized in GSA, but I can't figure out what is going wrong in the model. Below I added the file as I made it with the creation of the nodes included. I also added a file where the creating of the nodes isn't added.
The first added picture shows the error in GSA and the nodes GSA can't find have a red circle around it. It also says that GSA recognizes '7 structures'...
The second picture shows that the loading of forces is correctly recognized and also the pins in the first and last ring section are applied correctly. But GSA doesn't recognize the intersection points of the diagonals with the ring sections and the supporting beams...
All of the intersections between the beams need to be hinged connections, without restraints. The hinges where the forces are loaded into (z-direction) are the intersection points of the 'supporting beams' and the 'vertical ring sections'.
All of the hinges in the first and the last ring section are pinned (x,y,z restraint - xx,yy,zz not restraint).
Could anyone please help?
Thank you in advance!
…
is also takes place in own system. However, this action can be also carried out successfully by a foreign reference, if this considers the focused system as own. Hence, these two criteria are considered in my reflexions, to make your criticism handier for me.
First the question must be put up, how is it in your case? Of friendly manner you answer this question perpetually with the statement that you are not a partial of the system of the architecture.
Furthermore the question would be appropriate, whether an external reference (eg CAD) determined architecture. This can be answered with no, because determining and influencing are different things.
Because you stress now your criticism as a foreign criticism, within the architecture the assuption must be put up, that this criticism is not unusual new on the one hand (because this condition were also in other times like that, and presumably also always so remain) and further more a lack of goodwill in your criticism comes to light, which perhaps distinguishes an external reference.
Based on your critique, it would be also desirable in the system of the architecture if the academic rules become satisfyingly followed, even if this is no guarantor for good academic works. Nevertheless, there is an aspect which at least tolerates the evident lack in the Interdiziplinarität of the architecture. This is the classical and still valid determination of the architecture, presumably regulates not only the actions of the architects, but also those who want to become it.
Many who stand in your criticism (the students, as well as the teachers, ... ), live in the awareness that architecture is a profession that combines as many areas around the topic of Building, and the architect is even only one dilettante among the external specialists. In this determination dilettantism is revalued rather positively, because this state the architects enables to assess the facets of a complicated building project better and to form thereby the whole result positively. To be a good architect, you should have circumspect specialists around yourself. And exactly this knows the system of the architecture, because "THE ARCHITECT" helps himself with the logic of other systems (to repair on the one hand his own deficits), and to create an artificial complexity, which ultimately aims to be the complexity of human beeing.
Here "THE ARCHITECTS" becomes a quality-spoken, which currently seems the external reference (CAD, BIM) would like to take claim for themselves.
........
If would not thought about it, this might be helpful:http://www.amazon.com/The-Alphabet-Algorithm-Writing-Architecture/dp/0262515806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376920450&sr=8-1&keywords=mario+carpo"Finally, I’d like to restate my criticisms in general terms. If we are serious about moving architecture and urbanism away from purely artistic considerations and into a more rational arena, there has never been a better time than now. All of us have access to immense computational power which can be applied to problems that have been —until quite recently— intractable. But of course the garbage-in-garbage-out adage holds true; computation can be used to generate large amounts of complexity, but complexity does not equal worth. The only time when it makes sense to invoke computation in the design process is when there is some relevant data that needs to be computed" (David Rutton)I want to make it short, and just ask a few questions, and hope that the following questions are relevant also for you, and not be considered outside your system. i think that the weighting to such questions seem to be more valuable, not for the architects.1. What is wrong from a pure artistic intention?2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?4. What is purely architectural discourse?5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support? 6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ? 7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?…
ization processes aiming in maximizing the quality of buildings based on the daylighting, light levels, radiation and views. The first webinar in the Optimization Bundle introduce participants to metaheuristic optimization solving techniques. The training will cover evolutionary and particle swarm optimization applied to environmental problems such as radiation or amount of sunlight hours confronted with views. Grasshopper plug-ins used: Silvereye, Galapagos, Octopus, Opossum, Ladybug, Honeybee, Elk, Leafcutter Adrian KrężlikAdrian is a co-founder of Architektura Parametryczna - the biggest Polish firm dedicated to parametric education and co-founder of Parametric Support, a Berlin tech startup developing optimizationtechniques for architecture.He worked and collaborated on large scale projects in China, Saudi Arabia, US for the most innovative companies like Zaha Hadid Architects in London, FREE Fernando Romero, Rojkind Arquitectos inMexico implementing digital strategies into design. In his work he focuses on use of new media in design and construction processes. He is an active player across parametric scene - teaching andorganizing workshops, participating in Design Weeks, lecturing Parametric Design and Robotic Fabrication at School of Form and collaborating with several universities.The online webinar lasts 2 hours. The same session takes place twice on 7 January 2017: 1st session (https://goo.gl/haXsus): 9am London, 10am Paris, 12pm Moscow, 1pm Dubai, 2:30pm Mumbai, 5pm Beijing, 6pm Tokyo, 8pm Melbourne 2nd session (https://goo.gl/S6463C): 10am Los Angeles, 1pm New York, 6pm London, 7pm Paris, 9pm Moscow www.rese-arch.org…
Added by Jan Pernecky at 1:04pm on January 2, 2017
ace Syntax." eCAADe 2013 18 (2013): 357.
http://www.sss9.or.kr/paperpdf/mmd/sss9_2013_ref048_p.pdf
The measure Entropy is newer. I hereby explain it (from my PhD dissertation):
Entropy values, as described in (Hillier & Hanson, The Social Logic of Space, 1984) and specified in (Turner A. , “Depthmap: A Program to Perform Visibility Graph Analysis, 2007), intuitively describe the difficulty of getting to other spaces from a certain space. In other words, the higher the entropy value, the more difficult it is to reach other spaces from that space and vice-versa. We compute the spatial entropy of the node as using the point depth set:
(11)
“The term is the maximum depth from vertex and is the frequency of point depth *d* from the vertex” (ibid). Technically, we compute it using the function below, which itself uses some outputs and by-products from previous calculations:
Algorithm 4: Entropy Computation
Given the graph (adjacency lists), Depths as List of List of integer, DepthMap as Dictionary of integer
Initialize Entropies as List(double)
For node as integer in range [0, |V|)
integer How_Many_of_D=0
double S_node=0
For depth as integer in range [1, Depths[node].Max()]
How_Many_of_D=DepthMap.Branch[(node,depth)].Count
double frequency= How_Many_of_D/|V|
S_node = S_node - frequency * Math.Log(frequency, 2)
Next
Entropies [node] = S_node
Next
…
e I perform an offset operation on a number of curves across a surface, which then form the geometry for a series of rib structural members. It's worked flawlessly previous to this, but just started going weird today. I suspect it is something to do with me moving up to release .8.0001 from .7. I've attached the definition and surface. The problem seems to occur right at the beginning of the definition. The rest I think can be ignored. I've tried tracing back for a cause, but am coming up with no solution.
Previous to today:
Upon opening the definition today:
As you can see, the two 'ribs' on the rightmost side are offsetting in the opposite direction to the rest. I've tried playing with the plane that the offset references, reversing vectors, and other things, but I've reached a dead-end.
I would greatly appreciate any help in understanding or rectifying this, as it has me absolutely confused.
The problem seems to be occurring here:
.ghx and .3dm surface attached.
…