which needs to go in the first line only.
Each value K is one element of the knot vector
XYZ is an individual control point. Each point gets its own line/string in the output list
R is the weight of the XYZ point defined in the same line
I can get all these data into separate lists easily enough using the buttons etc. But getting them into the proper order and moving stepwise down the data to generate the desired output string list is eluding me so far.
My thought is to make an array of columns.
Column one is a list of knot values.
Column two is a list of X values.
Column 3 = list of Y values
Column 4=z values
Column 5 is weight values
etc
The idea would be to read the first value in each list into a list of five elements, then make a string out of it. The second value of each column into a separate string on the next line, then the third value from each column into the third string in the output list and so on.The last few values in the output list will contain knot vector elements only, as there are more of these than there are control points. Some of these curves are very long, with many control points, like hundreds and hundreds.
It seems I should be able to pull the lists of interest and combine them into a tree somehow; so far all I have been able to manage is to get them into a single list by starting with control points, then weaving each list of interest successively into the growing list. I'm thinking I need to get the list for each parameter into an individual branch, then read a path across the branches at each index value. But I am missing something about the terminology. I have watched a few videos and it makes sense when people are pulling nested geometry out of models, but this is a little different. More of a data management issue. I'm sure if I wrestle with it I will get it, but it may not be pretty. Any pointers appreciated. A couple of approaches are attached. Not sure whether to loop a list subset through the data or do something else. Thanks,
Karl in LA…
urely; an inevitable symptom of developing a piece of software on what Generative Components was doing almost 10 years ago, and creating a generation of users who have the power but not the insight in to how to use these tools properly. Ever seeing, never perceiving.
@ André-Jacques BODIN: as answers so far seem to be coming via links, try this: http://www.bentley.com/en-US/Products/GenerativeComponents/
you can download the latest version for free and it is infinitely more superior to GH. The learning curve is steeper but worth it. Out of experience I can tell you that the problem you have would be solved via your own skill and intelligence in a matter of seconds, rather then clumsily relying on somebody else to write some code 'packaged' as a component, and ultimately restricting your capacity to explore novel design solutions in an intelligent way.
If you are going to work in practice then unfortunately GH becomes utterly useless as it can only really be used in the initial stages of design. Its merely a toy for students and hobbyists. If you are just starting out, invest your time more wisely and learn something which can be used over the entire life cycle of project. It's so versatile that you essentially have unlimited potential and all operations remain fully in your control, or put in another way; you're not restricted by the idiosyncrasies of another programmer who's 'components' might be totally unsuitable for a novel idea you may want to explore therefore killling it.
…
t you're trying to do something which is not possible. Some solutions spring to mind other than changing the messaging behaviour of the Tree Item component:
Have an option for all objects (not just Tree Item) that allows you to disregard warning and error feedback. Sometimes a component has warnings (or indeed errors) and yet it still functions as planned. This often also happens with auto-casting, for example if you're trying to find all the curves in some data. Pros: solves the same problem in the same way everywhere, Cons: yet another menu item and yet another thing to watch for.
A global switch that disables the warning and error colouration. Pros: easy fix, easy unfix. Cons: if you also disable message balloons then you can't see where errors are happening.
Add a component which filters valid paths and item indices which you could insert in front of the Tree Item component. Pros: a very Grasshopper standard solution, Cons: yet another esoteric component.
I've been thinking about changing the way branches and items are accessed. Basically wondering whether it makes more sense to combine the tree path and the item index into a single data-type "{0;0;2} (0 to 9)" which defines both the path and a range of items in that path. It could be made to work almost identical to current Tree Branch and Tree Item components but it could also do some other cool stuff in addition to that. For example you could have:
{0;0;1} which defines all the items in that branch
{0;0;1} (2) which defines the third item in that branch
{0;0;1} (0,1,2,4) which defines the first, second, third and fifth items in that branch
{0;0;1} (0 to 4) which defines the first 5 items in that branch
{0;0;1} (!3) which defines all items except the fourth in that branch
And I'm sure people can think of even more combinations of symbols and numbers that can be added. Most of this logic is already in place in the [Replace Branches] and [Split Tree] components.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:58am on January 27, 2013
e in Euclidean space then the distance metric can be discontinuous:
Discontinuous means that a tiny change in input may result in a large change in output. Observe the image above, we start measuring euclidean distances from point A. At first the process appears to be continuous. We measure at distance b and we get point B. We increase the distance slightly to c and we get point C, which is very close to point B. We increase the distance slightly again to d, but now suddenly we're in a completely different location. This jumping behaviour can mean that certain questions (such as: "how do I divide this curve into 4 points, all equally far apart?") do not have an answer. It could be possible for 3 and 5, but not 4.
Another problem is that there may be multiple solutions. In the image above the point D isn't the only point that is d units away from A and coincident with the curve. There may be any number of those points depending on the shape of the curve, the location of A and the value of d. And of course once you have two (or more) solutions, you can have two (or more) answers. Then each of those solutions may yet again have more than one outcome for the next point in the chain and before you know it the question you asked has 35295 different answers and good luck trying to find one you like.
Now of course sometimes it is possible to answer your question unambiguously. I made a solution that uses Galapagos. It's pretty slow, and it'll get slower the more segments you want:
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 4:26am on September 9, 2013
r planet Utopia?
2. In what sort of animal these "shaders" are to be used? Meaning that designing a "Viz" control for 2345,67 mini-membranes is one thing and doing it for your house is a totally different challenge. In plain English: it's more than possible to hit the Wall if lot's and lot's of items are invited to the party (you bring the girls and I'll provide the Vodka).
3. Do you like the idea of completely separating (on a spatial basis) input/viz control (what is on display and on what level of "detail") from the core logic (i.e. components). Pros: obvious, Cons: obvious.
4. Is this def planned as a "constant" evolution thing? Meaning that using, say, the mapper isn't the best idea if your input goes from {a;b;c} to {a;b;c;d;g;...;z}.
5. Have you any - even academic - plans (see 1) to walk the walk up to the end?. Meaning talking to Birdair/Taiyo Kogyo etc etc ( http://www.birdair.br.com/ ). If yes be prepared because these fellas work a bit differently as regards potential collaboration and feedback at design phase.
BTW: the thing that would change the world as you know it:
http://www.birdair.br.com/tensileArchitecture/tensotherm.aspx
best, Peter
…
ts (other than Kangaroo - if required). Anyway notify if you want some taste of them (but they are a bit "chaotic" : too many parameters etc etc ...). Warning: Almost all are written with MCAD apps in mind: GH is used SOLELY as a graphical editor/topology solver and just makes the simplest instance definitions possible in order to send them (via STEP) to some MCAD (Frank G uses CATIA/Digital Project as you may probably know, CATIA is my favorite toy as well) for actually designing the components and composing the whole.
2. "Equality" in modules (panels/glass/lexan) it's not an issue (other than aesthetics). I mean cost wise since modules are prepared via CNC these days. I wouldn't suggest to waste your time with "equality" puzzles and completely ignoring the big picture (real-life) that is FAR and AWAY from aesthetics. I mean: assume that I of someone else or Daniel can "equalize" things (up to a point): Is this sufficient for designing a similar real-life solution? In plain English: don't get occupied by the tree and ignore the forest.
3. As regards the frame in most of cases some MERO type of modular system is used: either a "flat" dome-like arrangement or a classic spaceframe or a hybrid system [push: tubes, pull: cables]. Hybrids are the most WOW (and costly) for obvious reasons. When properly done (and combined with a planar glazing system) THIS is the star of the show.
4. As regards the skin we use either "hinged" custom stuctural/semi structural aluminum extrusions (they can adapt to different dihedrals up to a point) or classic custom planar SS16L systems that also can adapt to dihedrals. A custom planar glazing solution is hideously expensive, mind (say: 1K Euros per m2).
5. Smart Glass tech (changes light transmission properties under the application of voltage) is gradually penetrating the market especially in future bespoke designs.
So in a nutshell: these are "pro" territory - if I may use the term, thus I don't expect to find ANY similar "turn-key" solution in the very same sense that you can't find a tensile membrane turn-key solution.
Meaning that practices that can do it ... er ... they keep the cookies for themselves. …
ts (NOT meshes) using my (still WIP) BallPivot thingy (still highly temperamental despite wast quantities of Vodka consumed - in the Name Of Science, what else?):
Watch this Forum for the forthcoming mother of all threads : Get Points > Do Something.
On the other hand (real-life):
1. A truss without connectivity is nothing.
2. A truss without clash defection is nothing.
3. A truss without instance definition(s) is more than nothing.
4. A truss without (rather very complex that one, mind) roof/envelope stuff is nothing + pointless.
5. Mesh from points without a 1000% working ball pivot thingy is like 3rd marriage.
And as you'll discover this Monday ... well ... "some" things would be MIA from the definition.
Other than that:
For Chap, David, Angel and anyone else interested on these freaky things (get points do something, that is).
Do you people think that this (mode: dense [yellow stuff] ) has any meaning?
VS that (mode: hex):
I mean for the truss itself not the roofing paraphernalia. Notice that in this handsome hex mode we've already achieved max rigidity since we deal with tetrahedral stuff.
PS: My aunt Drusilla finds the dense mode ... utterly pointless (and a bit disgusting).
That's friends is the 1M question.
…
he grouping of the sliders on the remote control panel.
4. Separate viewport(look at picture)
5. Cluster editor new wish
My version grasshopper 0.8.0004
Best Regards,Valentin
Kiev, Ukraine
…
le] demo):
1. A transformation Matrix is a 4*4 collection of 16 values that "deform" 3d things according the values in the cells. The orthodox way is to deploy "cells" left to right and top to bottom. Rhino does the opposite (why?) hence we need the transpose method.
2. Since "translate" and "perspective" are "symmetrical" the transpose boolean toggle (within the C#) "flips" rows with columns ... so we get perspective or move.
3. When in perspective "mode" the vanishing points are computed internally within a min/max limit (per X/Y/Z axis) thus avoiding the usual havoc with "extreme" perspective angles (very common "glitz" in pretty much every CAD app - CATIA excluded). Vanishing points (and limits) are oriented with respect the pos/neg value of a given control slider.
Note: slider values are percentages between min/max (mode: perspective) and/or actual values*100 (mode: move).
4.In order to start mastering the whole thing: don't change anything: just play with these 4 sliders selected:
5. The 123 sardine cans challenge: even with DeusExMachine = true (see inside C#: that one redirects the transformation per BrepFace and then joins the breps instead of applying it on a brep basis)... odd things (and/or invalid breps) occur ... thus what is required in order to make things working 100% ??.
he, he
best, Lord of Darkness …
find my initial files, reports and errors (Running E+ simulation on the initial setup took hours and ended up with numerous errors)
I got a number of questions and would appreciate if you could answer them:
1- I have duplicated zones using "Honeybee Move". Is this the correct way to duplicate zones and if yes, should I rename all surfaces afterwards? I have renamed zones but not surfaces (The tower has 40 floors = 10 x typical group of 4 floors)
2- Should I convert all curvilinear objects to faceted geometry (or only windows and window-walls should be flat)?
3- In the next stage, I will add a second skin as the outer facade. Spiral structural elements (insulated thermal mass) are between interior and exterior areas, partly exposed to the sun. Should I split both interior and exterior zones to subtract these elements, and then solve the adjacencies?
4- To simplify the procedure and make it faster, I may simulate only 4 floors. Is it possible to force-hide the top roof and the lowest floor from the sun and other environmental factors? If yes, how? and do you know how much accuracy in the results would be lost in this case? 5- The outer skin would be all in glass, therefore in reality, the direct sun will affect the inner skin and the structural elements. I read somewhere that in HB+E+ simulations, direct sun turns to diffuse after passing the first layer of glass. Is that true? If yes, how can I make the inner skin exposed to direct sun in the simulation? Thank you very much for your time.
Best,
Aryan
…