subsequently able to retain a higher level of flexibility.
In Rhino however a rectangle is defined as only a plane and two numeric intervals (one for x, one for y). The possible solutions to this would be:
Extend the Rhino SDK Rectangle3d type to include constant radius fillet corners. This can be done, but is a lot of work and will break the SDK.
Create a new type in Grasshopper which is smarter than Rectangle3d. This complicates developing for Grasshopper because now you have to keep two different types in mind whereas before only one was needed.
Remove the Fillet Radius input from Rectangle components. I like this solution because it results in cleaner, simpler code, but it does mean people may need to use two components where before one was sufficient.
Make the Rectangle type smart enough so that it can recognise filleted rectangles and undo the filleting. This is something I can do right now for Grasshopper 1.0 and it in all likelihood would not break actual existing files even though it is technically a behavioural change.
I'll try and get (4) done for Rhino 6 SR1, I might decide to do (3) for Grasshopper 2.0. I sincerely doubt that (1) will ever get done and I dislike (2).…
Added by David Rutten at 4:38am on November 6, 2017
-life fabrication issues ... then ... well ... that's the reason for the Skype.
2. In general I would say that exploiting parametric "arrangements" (in the broad sense) is less than 5% of the whole ... given the fact that in real-life there's a lot of other constrains. Again using Kim's IKEA note: for instance packaging (at least for the magnitude of IKEA's business) is rather more important than ANY smart of stupid design.
3. Reliable components VS Design/Manufacturing cost IS the ultimate "fitness" challenge: this involves bottom-top design disciplines (not doable with Rhino/GH by any means) and ... well... some top dog feature driven MCAD app. Most makers/designers use the cheapo alternatives (SolidWorks/Creo etc etc) and the results ... well .. you get what you've paid for, he he.
4. Why bottom-top may you ask? (and what means this anyway?) Well ... one "connecting node" that would been made 1Z times at the minimum cost possible is a 100 times more challenging task than designing a shelve system that uses that node. See for instance A LOT of IKEA solutions (i.e. the nuts and bolts of them) that are exceptionally flimsy, very badly designed and ... well ... suitable for 1 week's usage (but there's some others that are less faulty). On the other hand IKEA actually serves the ephemeral ... thus ... this MAY be intentional (recycle > buy > recycle > buy > ...).
I buy therefor I exist.
For instance a certain IKEA mold injected "multi join node" for a given series of shelves ... it would sustain less than 5 minutes "abuse" (in case that someone would attempt to "rearrange" things). Moral: reality and theory ARE not the same thing.
I could continue until the end of Time listing "aspects" of the whole puzzle related with production issues ... but for the moment I would conclude by the following:
GH is a good "general" purpose graphic editor and Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modelling app. If you combine these 2 ... you can easily outline what you can and what you can't (or shouldn't) do on that subject.…
heating? Or cooling?)
What if you have 20C? You need to heat to 24-26?
What if you have 28? Then you cool to 24-26?
Something is missing here ...
Or am i wrong? (In this case i don't understand the logic).
Besides that, you are simulating 3 zones instead of 1. Your conncetions of all the HB_setEPZoneSchedules to the HB_setEPIdealAir is causing this. Messy ... a little bit.
-A.…
ay to make some real-life proper nodes for that kind of T truss (we use machined balls solely for MERO KK type of normal trusses).
3. I'll post here soon a modular demo system suitable for this case (real-life for AEC purposes - NOT for decorative/artistic stuff, I don't care about that since I'm an engineer). This would include a policy for the X struts that require a variable linkage (the X angle). and in the same time a multi cable tensioner "bracket".
4. "Basic" coding next week for T trusses ? Er ... well ... are you kidding me right? I mean that ... hmm ...
5. C# things (about 2+K) around me are classified into 2 "groups": things that are weapons in the right hands and others that serve as demos/start points for mostly abstract cases. The former are internal the latter for public use. I'll remove some sensitive lines from a T truss C# maker and I'll post it here as a "guideline" ... for ...hmm... 4.
All in all:
Provided that you have system(s) on hand (see 3) that work 100% OK in an ideal world you'll need:
A. Something that does the general topology AND (especially) clash detection. Maybe Kangaroo as well as a "first pass" with regard rigidity of the structure in case that you don't adopt a classic T "configuration" (there are many > Google tensegrity).
B. Connectivity trees that relate nodes/edges and maybe faces (say for roofing panels/curtain walls etc etc). Without them is impossible to assemble the T thingy.
C: Something that places real-life "parts" as instance definitions and/or (optional) a "tracking variants history" ability.
D. A bullet proof way to EXPORT things (on an assembly/component schema, say: STEP214 - see C) into a proper BIM app (the likes of AECOSim/Revit) and/or into a MCAD app (the likes of CATIA/NX).
E. FEA/FIM in order to validate the structural ability of the components and the T truss itself.
F. Roofing/cladding/envelope components.
G. "Interactive" cost estimation(s) - T trusses are hideously expensive at least versus "classic" trusses (exactly like a planar glazing system that retails 3++ times more than a humble semi-structural one)…
is a exhibition building) generic outline (easy with GH), (b) real nested parametric part inclusion in the definition (hmm), (c) a GH ability to bake structured geometry to Rhino...and then Rhino (acting as a "companion" app to a given AEC app + FE analysis + cost analysis + ...) export properly structured data.
2. "Whole" and "Detail" here are tightly related : there's no meaning to promote an "idea" without solving the nuts and bolts of it. This is the so called "bottom-to-top" design mentality.
It's a mystery to me why GH doesn't include, say, some ways to control bake on a per block basis (actually on a per nested block basis).
…
a black hexagonal background. They are containers of parameters but parameters in themselves, like the "x" in a mathematical function. So, what I do is something like:
2) That depends exclusively on the panel, not the cluster. Then you can't. It is also not possible to assign access (item, list, tree) to the parameters.What you are trying to do, assigning components to the inputs directly, can only be done from code or using snippets. http://www.food4rhino.com/app/brick-box…
ave the bytes available, they also need to be adjacent. All 4 frikkin trillion of them (assuming you need a million 1000x1000 pixel tiles). That's just not going to happen.
It could be that Photoshop has very clever memory management that allows it to store image data in non-consecutive chunks, but .NET does not allow this.
In fact this can be a real problem with much smaller images as well. In 32-bit Windows you're allowed 2GB of memory per application (sometimes 3). If Rhino+Grasshopper are already using up 1.5GB it's not like you can fit in an extra 0.5GB image before running into problems. Memory is almost never used in a consecutive fashion.
Rhino uses a clever memory manager (not the default Windows one) that results in less memory fragmentation and Grasshopper uses the .NET memory allocator and garbage collector which is capable of defragmenting memory usage. But even with these two optimizations memory fragmentation will occur (and the longer Rhino runs the worse it will get) making it less and less likely that you'll be able to find large consecutive areas of free memory.
The Grasshopper hi-res image exporter creates image tiles of 1000x1000 pixels and saves these files immediately. So it never requires more than 4MB while running. Once it's done making the images, it will start a different application that will stitch these images together. That's what the GrasshopperImageStitcher.exe in your screenshot is. Since this is a new app, it has 2GB of absolutely pristine memory to play with so it's a lot longer before it runs into problems. And when it does run into memory problems it won't bring down Rhino with it.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Please mail me the file that is causing problems so I can debug it.
Regarding your quad-core, Rhino and Grasshopper are not multi-threaded applications. (Very few apps actually are). Therefore I can only use 1 of your cores which equals about 25% of a quad-core machine.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 4:07am on November 10, 2009
t ... have a close look on these weird "slots" in the base mount plate - allow the struts to "follow" some base "auto" arrangement (up to a point).
2. After various ... er ... hmm... "communications" with a variety of apps.(some of them are not for public eyes) ...here's a concept demo about what could be done and fool the academics (that's the bit that I like the most)
In plain English (work in GH):
1. Create some wires that represent the struts and PAY attention on their limits of adjustability.
2. Create a nurbs curve through the points indicated with "balls" in the demo. Patch the nurbs.
3. Trim the nurbs surface with some "indicative" profiles OR use Kangaroo by applying a minimum possible relax state (if the latter add the rhomboid cables as well - they deform by pulling the membrane downwards).
4. Optionally put the real things in place (quite GPU taxing that one - do some Viz control).
best, Peter
…
y serve as a demo to you.
That said building regulations is a paramount factor (they vary according country).
In general and if the star body is mono-block (say: concrete) ... I would strongly suggest to use real-life "objects" as parts and orient them properly (steps. handrails et all). If the stair is an assembly this is utterly paramount.
But if you work with some feature driven BIM app (Revit, AECOSim etc) there's some automation available (100% useless in 1:1 detailed studies).…