his fast-moving class covers most of Rhino's functionality, including the most advanced surfacing commands. In addition, this workshop will give students a functional understanding of Grasshopper and Parametric design. This will allow them to build on this understanding into more advanced projects of their own including design optimization with RhinoNest and creating their models on a laser machine.
…
which has a 0.2 - 0.5 lighting fraction in the evenings with the generated profile, which has a 1.0 lighting fraction in the evenings.
I'm guessing that this component assumes lighting is 100% required if the lighting fraction is greater than 0.2 and if daylight isn't sufficient. However, I would prefer that if daylight isn't sufficient, the continuous (not binary) lighting fraction is taken from the original schedule.
Does anyone know how to essentially merge these schedules? I think I could do this by exporting to excel, using a couple excel formulas and re-importing, but I would prefer to stick in Grasshopper.
Below is the image of the Office::OpenOffice occupancy schedule, the generated lighting annual profile, and the Office::OpenOffice lighting schedule. I've circled the area in the evening where I'd expect/prefer the generated lighting profile to have a fraction similar to the original lighting schedule. …
less points there are.
Then, I want to take each point, and find its closest neighbor (closest point), and connect these two with a spline curve that will be ON the surface of the original 3D form (the egg).
Then, I want to rail a square on these curves, but I think that's not possible inside grasshopper since there is not "square" rail option, only circle....
I can do the 3D voronoi on top of the form but all these previous steps are holding me back:
1) The point list of the populate points is random, and I can't figure out how to order the point indexes from 0 to 100 so that the lowest ones are 0,1,2,3... and the topmost one is 100. I've tried distance attractor methods but I guess I can't figure it out for hours...
2) Assuming the indexes are correct, how do I cull in a sequence from bottom to top to get more culling as I go up?
3) Again a list problem - the closest points - I can't get each point to have only 1 connection to a close point, it's always many connections, so every time I don't get a collection of curves that are clear, but a huge collection of curves from many points to many points.. I only want each point to have a connection to one other point (2 way connection between a point and its closest point).
If anyone understands the problem and can maybe help me out here, I would appreciate it.
I think my knowledge of lists and domains and series etc. is pretty limited as of now, so I would appreciate an example or a solution in code so that I can understand it...
Thank you!…
is created for each point (25 paths, N=1 for each) which is feed into [Pull Point] for the pull geometry [G].
Correspondingly for the 4 source points a branch is created for each point and duplicated 25 times (4 paths, N=25 for each). This tree then needs to be inverted with [Path Mapper] so the structure will correspond to the format of the pull geometry. The mapping {A;B;C}(i) > {i}(B) produces (25 paths, N=4 for each) the structure to feed into the search point [P].
The [Pull Point] boolean toggle [C] needs to get set to False to obtain all the distances between all search and pull points (4 x 25 = 100 values).
Simultaneously there is also an index being created to correspond to the list of the 4 source points. This index is the integers 0 to 3 which are branched and inverted similar to the source points (25 paths, N=4 for each).
The distance output [D] from [Pull Point] is then sorted synchronously with the source point index for each branch. From the following screengrab branch {0;0} corresponds to a point in the 5 x 5 grid and the shortest distance between that point and a referenced source point index is 5.261. The index of the referenced source point is 3.
For each following sorted branch the first sorted index value will correspond to the closest source point (first [List Item] shown). This index value is then used to select from the original list of duplicated and inverted points and this is done for each of the 25 branches (second List Item shown).
Draw a line or whatever an away we go!…
rimitive way to do business) imposes serious limitations with regard the topology of the line graph on duty. I do hope that you understand what I'm talking about. DO NOT use this attached against graphs made via proximity 3d and the likes.
2. No clash detection (via trigonometry) is included. Either instance definitions.
3. No values check function is included: this is a rather complex thing when we do real-life "geodetic" trusses.
4. For the critical part: the linkage ... well you have 3 choices (see comments inside). Modelling a parametric linkage in GH/Rhino is 100% out of question. The only thing that you can do is use one as instance definition and put it in a myriad of places. DO NOT attempt to do that the classic way (Orient component).
5. Go to the model shops ask for a big radio controlled car/buggy and observe what a mini ball pivot linkage is (the red freaky thingy):
May the Force (the dark option) be with you.
Suggestion: abandon ship.
best, Lord of Darkness…
te value.
So abs(a-b) finds how much (always positive) each cell's area differs from its target area.
I then took the negative of that (-abs(a-b)) because Galapagos always tries to maximize the Fitness, and used Mass Addition so it minimizes the total difference from ideal areas.
I was first assuming that you were trying to tackle Kelvin's problem with Galapagos - and wondering if it would end up with the Weaire-Phelan structure. I think this would be a very interesting one to try (especially as it is not proven that W-P is optimal, so there is a chance it might find something better!), but a little tricky to set up. You'd need to simultaneously ensure equal volumes and minimize total surface area, and for all of space, not just some finite volume. If you do pursue this, then Ruggero Gabbrielli would probably be a good person to talk to.
But from the image you posted it looks like the regular Weaire-Phelan packing, just with some cells removed. I don't really see how a genetic algorithm would be very useful in this particular case.…
Added by Daniel Piker at 6:13am on September 4, 2010
1
condition: largest number<max length
then the packing would look something like this:
1 |4 |5 |7 |2
9 |6 |5 |3 |2
|5
|1
sums|10|10|10|10|10 => 100% efficiency
And the algorithm is:
1.Place first number(x=1)
2.Calculate the rest(R) in this row(10-1=9)
3.Search for closest x <= than R
3.1 If x=R -> place that number -> end of cycle
3.2 If x<=R -> place that number -> return to 2.
3.3 If x=null -> end of cycle
Something like this.
Can this be classified as brute force?
…
Added by Artyom Maxim at 11:08am on March 19, 2013
at) as regards a consistent origin and direction policy.
In the mean time :
1. Appears that the GH Loft messes things somehow with respect the curve's coordinate (planes) system "per Loft pair" . Explain this:
I mean that some pairs of profiles are "almost" OK whilst others are in a terrible mess (spot the gray thing) . Given the fact that the coordinate system deployment is highly problematic as well (notify if you want proof/test cases) I believe that the whole problem has 2 separate fault "categories".
2. Appears that the adjust seam ... er ... alters the direction (remove the flip stuff and test it).
3. Sweep1/2 are equally problematic - next forth coming case: 123,45 Sweep1/2 examples.…
low for a degree of variation that my previous option was not allowing. There are two problems with this however.
1. i need to restrict the minimum and maximum distance of the curves at 30<100 mm respectively.
2. i also need to repeat the cycle of waves, so i dont think that splitting the curves at the cycle change and doing this method.would be useful because this would cause overlaps right?
3. most annoying constraint that I have is that the length of the elements cannot exceed 1500. :(
so basically there is limited room to play in the extent of the wave but, there is scope in repetition.
thanks for all your help so far man! once this is done I would like to make my definition as neat and communicative as yours and share it with everyone!
…