file. A TSpline made thing in fact.
2. This atroci ... er ... hmm ... I mean unspeakable beauty uses an exo-skeletal load bearing structure hence is THAT big (BTW: Apparently nobody knows what thermal bridge is nor thermal expansion nor vapor condensation ... but these are "minor" details these holly blob days, he he).
3. 2 means that some nodes of that "grid" MUST "meet" floors in order to support them and (hopefully) withstand some seismic forces. BTW: A Richter scale 9 (for an hour) is all what this building actually needs (that's acid "humor").
4. The "smarter" way to do this is to spread "some" (i.e a lot) random points (Note: David's algo yields "evenly-spaced-points" within the limits of the possible) on the guide blob (a polysurface in fact).
5. Then ... you need some algo that tests proximity AND "adjusts" the Z in order to have some node points "co-planar" (Z) with the floors.
6. Then you triangulate all that stuff (the points, that is) using some decent Ball Pivot Algorithm (NOT Delauney) and you get a triangulated mesh that "engulfs" the guide blob. If you want some quads (as shown) this is also possible.
7. So you have edges ... i.e poly lines (per mesh face) and if you offset them ... you have "drilling" profiles that you must use against a second guide "thickened" blob for creating a continuously smooth exo-skeletal LBS (as shown). Of course Rhino (being a surface modeller) could require years to do this solid difference opp (or an eternity).
8. Rounding the "lips" of that LBS Brep is out of question with Rhino or GH (but it can been done very easily using other apps). Then you must "split" the Brep (in modules? in nodes + "rodes"? you tell me) in order to make it in real-life (what about forgetting all that?, he he).
9. Then, there's the glazing thingy that is made via quads meaning planarity. This is achievable with Kangaroo2 but is a bit tricky.
Moral: WHAT a gigantic pile of worms is this thread of yours...
more soon.
…
meaning that the C# does all the work as a standalone "app"):
Plan B: Sweep1 > it doesn't work > "Karma" without doubt, he he.
Plan Z: use C# as a stand alone ring maker (Lot's of information is provided in case of failure(s) [for instance: outwards offset + sharp corners + fitOffsetCurve false]). If you opt for that, delete all the rest. To allow the C# to do the rings you just toggle createBreps true:
Plan A: toggle createBreps false and use gates to redirect flow to Plan A components.
Plan C: by pass C#, make your sections via components and connect the resulting List to the (top) Gate that controls the sections List. Not recommended for a variety of reasons ... but if you insist ...
best, Peter…
if you can't resolve the details ... well ... they do that as well. For Europe contact my good friend Peter Stevens. (BirdAir).
In general: PRIOR designing ANYTHING (at all) you must formulate some kind of collaboration with a specialized manufacturer. Problem is that ... er ... if they don't know you they don't give much attention (this is a rather "closed" AEC sector).
On the other hand if your membrane is bespoke designing the components (anchor plates, masts, tensioners etc etc) and/or using bespoke ones available in the market (not many around. mind)... well ... this IS the core of the matter. Rhino is NOT suitable for that kind of stuff by any means.
Kangaroo 1/2 is the way to go when inside GH. Other apps especially the "pro" ones are very expensive. BirdAir has the best software for that matter but is mostly an internal product available as well only for few "strategic" partners as they call Architects who can design that kind of stuff.
Other than that have some fun:
Tensile Membranes test3 - Grasshopper
And this ... well ...is about NOT doing it:
Need help about using Kangaroo for form finding
…
ple and/or easy.
I use GH/Rhino (really GH almost exclusively) for design. I find the parametric capabilities of GH simply spectacular. The Autocad apps are all quite good (and free) so I would have no problem recommending any of them. Meshmixer is a common starter for people new to 3D printing; it is targeted at more "free form"/artistic designs that is Tinkercad, which is more oriented for geometric/engineering/architectural designs. Sketchup is also a good place to start with 3D design; it used to be owned by Google but is now owned by a 3rd party company.
For slicers I've tried them all and have settled on Craftware. It's free and available at https://www.craftunique.com/craftware. For backup to that (it is still a beta product) I use Simplify3D (very seldom) but it costs $150.
If anyone cares I have uploaded an updated version of the Stepwell GH file; I tweaked it a bit to make it a little simpler and to make the base thicker so it would be more robust when printed. The dimensions of the part are large so it has to be scaled down to fit a particular printer. This is easily done with any slicer. The STL file from Rhino still has to be fixed; as exported it would print with no bottom - and I haven't figured out why that happens.…
Added by Birk Binnard at 12:36pm on February 14, 2016
ject that involves the design of an app that allows people to interact with a 3d model through some sliders.)
Ok, imagine you have a symmetrical shape like the one i drew:
What I intend to do is to have different 3 sliders that allow me to adjust the 3 distances (x, y, z) independently of one another.
-1st question: my idea is to draw the curves in rhino, then use the "divide" and "list item" components to extract the points I need. Is it correct? :D
-2nd question: the "move away from" component can be used in a symmetric way?
(I try to be more specific: with only one slider, can I move both points 5 and 6 simultaneously about the axis i drew?)
-3rd question: is there a way that allows the curves to reshape themselves as I move the slider related to the distance between a couple of points?
I hope I have been clear ;) I would greatly appreciate any help you can give me!
Matteo…
to carry out without them. We will go through these plugins learning how they work, main features and advantages playing with practical exercises.
We will highlight key concepts in advanced design, architecture and engineering: topology, form-finding, structural optimization, fractals, loops, genetic and repetitive algorithms...
Also, we will see how to capture nice views and designs from your scripting, with a correct export option, animations...
This course is On-line live sessions (18hours), using our platform online.controlmad.com
STRUCTURE:
- Interactive flexible geometry
- Generative design
- Reaction diffusion
- Geometry from DNA parameters
- Generative path visualization
- Growth simulation by sub-D
- Generating and genetic algorithms
- Visualization techniques
Main plug-ins shown:
> Kangaroo: The most famous and downloaded app for Grasshopper (it is built in the current Grasshopper for Rhino 6). It is a live physics engine interactive simulation, optimization and form-finding directly within Grasshopper
> Galapagos: available in the current Grasshopper build, it is a platform for the application of Evolutionary Algorithms to be used on a wide variety of problems by non-programmers
> Biomorpher: Interactive Evolutionary Algorithms (IEAs) helping designers to explore the wide combinatorial space of parametric models without always knowing where you are headed.
> Anemone: works using repetitive algorithms to create loops or sequencial structures like those ones seen in fractals.
Dates: July 10,11,17 and 18 (total 4 days)
Registration deadline: Monday, July 5th
Timetable: Saturday and Sunday 9,30 - 2pm (Madrid Time Zone CEST)…
Added by Diego Cuevas at 3:40am on September 11, 2018
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. …
sion app (Modo, Z Brush etc) in order to get "as equal" as possible mesh faces.
For instance ... see a W depth truss (tri mesh > meaning that the "out" grid is hexagons) out from a Kangaroo "inflated" mesh:
2. A space frame is NOT a collection of abstract lines ... meaning that clash members detection (via trigonometry and NOT by checking boolean intersections) is far more important than the "concept" it self. If "live" alterations are required for addressing local clash issues ... well ... that's 100% impossible with native components.
See a typical clash detection capability:
3. A truss without proper connectivity Data Trees means nothing in real-life (vertices to edges, vertex to vertex, edges to vertices).
4. Each "standard" truss member (say: sleeves, cones and the likes) should be an instance definition placed in space according appropriate orienting planes. That way you may be able to handle thousands of components that in real-life participate in any truss of a certain size.
All the above are far easier to do with code (V4 is impossible with components).…