doi%3D10.1631%2Fjzus.2006.A0570&rct=j&q=nesting%20algorithme&ei=02sTTsTzFYrt-gaSj5XVDQ&usg=AFQjCNEGBoMjvncNtXA4MZX9lFYJKj1QiA&cad=rjaNesting of Complex Sheet Metal Partshttp://www.cadanda.com/CAD_4_1-4__18.PDFOptimizing Allocation of Two Dimensional Irregular Shapes using an Agent Based Approachhttp://www.waset.org/journals/waset/v11/v11-19.pdfAlgorithmes Heuristiques et Evolutionnistes :Application à la Résolution du Problème de Placement de Formes Irrégulièreshttp://sysbio.vtt.fi/members/thesisckb_oct98.pdfApplying Meta-Heuristic Algorithms to the Nesting Problem Utilising the No Fit Polygonhttp://junisesafvanishere.blogspot.com/If you can afford, these are not for free :Solving pattern nesting problems with genetic algorithms employing task decomposition and contact detectionhttp://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1326699many others $http://academic.research.microsoft.com/Publication/13335451/a-tutorial-in-irregular-shape-packing-problems…
izes like 0.6m, 0.8m, 0.9m and 1.2m are the most "common": In cases where mechanical floors are a must (hospitals for instance) a 2.4/2.4 is quite handy (habitable/mechanical per floor). You can try 1.8/2.7 as well (floor/habitable) since 1.8 floor thickness can host HVAC and some decent W truss size. Also 1.6/2.4 (floor/habitable) is used in small buildings. NOTE: see next.
3. Don't forget to include corrugated metal height + concrete screed height + raised floors height: for the latter, say, something like 0.3m (modules + adjustable mounts + free space for electric stuff [boxes etc]).
4. As regards exteriors, Laurent Buzon is a close friend of mine. Contact him directly on my behalf:
http://www.buzonuk.com/
http://www.google.gr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&sourc...
5. LBS Structural ability and "monolithic" floor behavior (humans don't like vibrating habitable spaces) ARE not the same animal.…
areas for openings by attractor point
http://www.grasshopper3d.com/page/search-results?cx=007664031582976519548%3A0mtws3t01h4&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=attractor+Point&sa=Search&siteurl=www.grasshopper3d.com%2Fforum%2Ftopics%2Fhow-can-i-make-curves-from-points-of-a-split-list&ref=www.grasshopper3d.com%2Fforum%2Fcategories%2Fdiscussion-1%2FlistForCategory
3. Offset the egdes (the distance of the face to the attractor points is giving you the offset distance)
http://digitaltoolbox.info/grasshopper-advanced/fillet-diagrid/
Get started and ask questions with your files.
Best Regards
DeDackel…
ed four workshops, each featuring a partnership of a creator of hardware technology and a software developer. The outcomes of the four workshops will form a single structure.
Workshops:
1. Facade panels with RoboFold & Kangaroo/Lobster
2. Cantilever CNC wooden lattice with Archiwaste & SMART Form by BuroHappold
3. Corian freeform surfaces by Cutting Edge & Evolute Tools
4. Milled foam and cast concrete with Cordek & Galapagos/David Rutten
Book on the Shape To Fabrication website or via SimplyRhino on 0208 498 9900. Tickets are limited to 10 per workshop at £500+VAT (professional) and £400+VAT (student).…
Added by Gregory Epps at 5:15am on September 29, 2011
ny objectives, no matter what their relations are. the formulation of the fitness functions always is kind of crucial in evolutionary optimization, and sometimes quite tricky. there is hardly a general answer to this. but for instance, if your goals are not contradicting, the algorithm would converge much faster, opposed to contradicting goals where more diversity in a solution set is produced.
you could start with all the goals you can think of, then look at the resulting pareto-fronts and how the overall process goes, then filter out the necessary ones, and/or turn some of the goals into hard constraints.
2. the variables must be sliders or gene lists for octopus. the more variables there are, the harder the problem. the more you satisfy 'little change in variables causes little change in goals', the easier the problem is to solve. if you change sliders and nothing changes in your goals, you should probably rethink your problem definition - i cant tell if its really necessary in your case without having an example.
3. the manual tells you that these are the boundaries of the pareto-front (dark) and the elite (light) of the number of history generations set in the top left corner of the viewport. the lower boundary can go up again as a result of the filtering strategy (either hypervolumeContribution or spea2-archiving) - the set of solutions per generation converges to smaller goals over time, some 'bad' extreme solutions are truncated sometimes - hence the lower bound can also go up.
no variation means you have an ill-defined goal there
4. please refer to this paper for example, which is linked in octopus' examples page:
http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/sop/publicationListFiles/zitz2007a.pdf
or one of the following:
http://scholar.google.co.id/scholar?q=hypervolume+multiobjective+optimization&hl=de&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ei=16nvU7HEJK2g7AaZ_4DIBw&ved=0CBgQgQMwAA
Best
Robert…
th a graphic editor (GH) hosted in a CAD app that has primitive assembly/component capabilities and/or feature driven ops (Rhino). Did I've mentioned that Rhino is a surface modeler? (meaning the obvious).
3. Imagine a "seed" collection of assemblies related with various membrane components made in SW. Say: geometry (prior solid ops) and parameters (the feature driven part of the equation, in most of cases managed with some RDBMS). You should port these to GH (a variety of ways exist for that) and create the bare minimum of "solids" in GH as instance definitions. There's 2 main reasons to do that: (a) effectively communicating back on an assemply/component schema (via STEP) and ... (b) achieving manageable collections when in GH. These are critical for clash detection (when outlining some topology in GH, therefore NEVER work just with "curves") and "variation" control of some sort (up to a point). Of course for high class designs (where the devil hides in the details) this is NOT the best imaginable solution ... you'll need CATIA for such an integrated (all in one) procedure. On the other hand many could (wrongly) argue that CATIA is expensive (rather naive argument if a company has a certain turnover).
4. So, in general I would strongly suggest to use instance definitions of items in some sort of "intermediate state" of detail (an 100% undoable task without code) structured in such a way (classic assembly/component MCAD mentality blah, blah) that SW could take benefit of a possible modified "base topology" and proceed by finishing variations of the given assembly (feature driven stuff as usual).
5. Then export (STEP 214) back portions of the assemblies (and parameters used) to R/GH if and when this is required (for instance for BIM disciplines ... but Rhino is not a BIM app, nor it would ever be).
6. If you are familiar with code matters ... start thinking the whole puzzle that way, if not my advise is to find someone to design such a "procedure" (say an "app") using solely code, but this is not a task for the inexperienced by any means.
best, Peter…