http://www.pilkington.com/) dominates the planar market. Charges "around" 1K Euros per m2 for a "plain" system. Personally in bespoke projects I design my own stuff but due to economies of scale ... they cost a bit more (but they look far more sexier, he he) . On the other hand only in a bespoke project I could dare to suggest such a solution (for a large scale building we are talking lots and lots of dollars).
3. Several scales below (aesthetics) you can find static alu systems (either structural or semi-structural):
Or hinged systems (either structural or semi-structural) capable to adapt in contemporary double curvature facades/roofs/envelopes/cats/dogs etc etc ... pioneered worldwide many years ago by my best friend Stefanos Tampakakis (everybody in UAE knows that genius man: http://www.alustet.gr/company.html):
4. With the exception of some paranoid things that Guru Stefanos does for Zaha these days we are talking about planar "facets" (obviously a triangle is such a planar facet). The current trend is: the more edges the better (humans excel in vanity matters). But achieving planarity in, say, quads (like yours) it adds another "restriction" on what you are doing. Until recently Evolute Tools Pro was the only answer. But right now ... well let's say that in short time you'll be greatly surprised by some WOW things in this Noble Forum, he he.
5. MERO (and obviously custom systems) can adapt (at almost no extra charge) in anything imaginable. But in a bespoke building ... well.. you know ultra rich people: they don't want MERO anymore since "everybody" does MERO solutions. Vanity, what else?
6. Smart Glass would become a must in the years to come: Eco-Architecture MUST dominate everything you do. On the other hand spending millions to do some extra WOW stuff (Vanity) ... it doesn't look to me very Eco-Friendly/Whatever ... but let's pretend so, he he.
7. I'm Architect but a bit different from the norm: for instance I smoke cigars (highly politically incorrect stuff) I always talk openly (ditto) and I ride lethal bikes (ditto).
may the Force (as always the Dark Option) be with you: go out there and kill them all.
best, Peter
…
Ladybug + Honeybee:
(Follow steps 0-4 for basic functionality and 0-9 for full functionality)
0. If you have an old version of LB+HB, download the file here (https://app.box.com/s/ds96em9l6stxpcw8kgtf)
and open it in Grasshopper to remove your old Ladybug and Honeybee version.
1. Make sure that you have a working copy of both Rhino and Grasshopper installed.
2. Open Rhino and type "Grasshopper" into the command line (without quotations). Wait for grasshopper to load.
3. Install GHPython 0.6.0.3 by downloading the file at this link (http://www.food4rhino.com/project/ghpython?ufh) and
drag the .gha file onto the Grasshopper canvas.
4. Select and drag all of the userObject files (downloaded with this instructions file) onto your Grasshopper canvas.
You should see Ladybug and Honeybee appear as tabs on the grasshopper tool bar.
(If you are reading this instruction on github you can download them from http://www.food4rhino.com/project/ladybug-honeybee)
5. Restart Rhino and Grasshopper. You now have a fully-functioning Ladybug. For Honeybee, continue to the following:
6. Install Radiance to C:\Radiance by downloading it from this link (https://github.com/NREL/Radiance/releases/download/4.2.2/radiance-4.2.2-win32.exe) and running the exe.
7. Install Daysim 4.0 for Windows to C:\DAYSIM by downloading it at this link (http://daysim.ning.com/page/download) and running the exe.
8. Install EnergyPlus 8.1 to C:\EnergyPlusV8-1-0 by going to the DOE website (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/energyplus_download.cfm), making an account, going to "download older
versions of EnergyPlus, selecting 8.1 and running the exe.
9. Copy falsecolor2.exe (http://pyrat.googlecode.com/files/falsecolor2.exe) and evalglare.exe (http://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/en/downloads-englisch/software/evalglare_windows.zip/at_download/file) to C:\Radiance\bin
10. You now have a fully-working version of Ladybug + Honeybee. Get started visualizing weather data with these video tutorials (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-Sj_XGz3kzHUoWmpWDXNep1O).
After I've done all the above I followed this video
https://vimeo.com/96155674
And everything works well.
…
nted" in space (at instance definition creation phase): indicates the obvious fact that if garbage in > garbage out (try it).
2. Load the GH thing. Task for you: Using Named Views locate the points of interest as described further and make a suitable view. That way you can navigate rather easily around (hope dies last).
3. Your attractors are controlled from here:
The slider in blue picks some attractor to play with. You can use this while the K2 is running.
4. Don't change anything here (think of it as a black box: who cares how it works? nobody actually):
5. Enable the other "black box": job done your real-life stuff is placed:
6. Enable the solver: your "real-life" things start to bounce around:
7. Go there are play with the slider. A different attractor yields an other solution:
8. With real-life things in place if you disable the C# ... they are instantly deleted and you are back in lines/points and the likes:
9. Either with instance definitions or Lines/points change ... er ... hmm ... these "simple" parameters and discover the truth out there:
10. Since these are a "few" and they affect the simulation with a variety of ways ... we need a "self calibrating" system: some mini big Brother that does the job for us. Kinda like applying safely the brakes when it rains (I hate ABS mind).
NOTE: the rod with springs requires some additional code ,more (that deals with NESTED instance definitions) in order to (b) bounce as a whole and at the same time (b) elongates or shrinks a bit.
More soon.
…
ng/702/30
EDIT: DK2 works, not with positional tracking yet (14/09/15)
Source is here:
https://github.com/provolot/RhinoRift
Steps:
1) Download these files (also attached below):
https://github.com/provolot/oculus-grasshopper/raw/master/oculus-grasshopper_v0.4.ghx
https://github.com/provolot/oculus-grasshopper/raw/master/OpenTrackRiftGrasshopperUDP.ini
https://github.com/provolot/oculus-grasshopper/raw/master/oculus-grasshopper-test_v0.1.3dm
2) Download OpenTrack - http://ananke.laggy.pk/opentrack/, and setup/install. Once installed, double-click to open.
3) In OpenTrack, load the 'OpenTrackRiftGrasshopperUDP.ini' profile. Click the 'Start' button and move your Rift around - make sure that it looks like the Yaw/Pitch/Roll data is being sent. TX/TY/TZ will all be 0, as Oculus doesn't have absolute positioning data.
4) In Rhino, open the test 3dm. You'll notice that there are two viewports - called 'LeftEye' and 'RightEye'. These have been placed to mimic where the screens should be for the Oculus Rift --- but only when Rhino is in fullscreen mode, with the command 'Fullscreen'. The placement needs to be tweaked, but should work.
If you want to use your own model, you can load your own .3dm file in Rhino, then you can right-click on the viewport name, and go to Viewport Layout > Read from File. If you then load my test file, Rhino should open my two viewports, sized correctly, onto your model.
The placement of these viewports need to be tweaked; if you find a better viewport layout, upload an empty Rhino file with your viewports, and we can share eye-layout 'templates'!
5) In Grasshopper, open the .ghx definition. Everything that is multiple-grouped is a value that can be changed. Two things here:
- IPD: Set this and convert it to the proper units for your model.
- Left/right viewport names. In this case, leave this as-is, since you're using my example file.
6) Turn on the Grasshopper Timer, if it isn't on already.
7) In the GH definition, toggle 'SyncEyes' to be True. Then, in the left viewport, try orbiting around with the mouse. The 'RightEye' viewport should move around as well, pretty much simultaneously.
8) In OpenTrack, click 'Start', then toggle 'ReadUDP' to be True. You should see the 'OpenTrackInfo' panel fill with data that's constantly changing.
9) Move around the landscape with your camera, and when you set on a starting view that's ideal, click the triangle of the Data Dam component to 'store' the data.
10) Finally, toggle 'OculusMove' to be true. If all works correctly, both viewports should move based on the Rift's movement.
Let me know if you have any problems!
Cheers,
Dan…
Added by Dan Taeyoung at 11:47pm on December 10, 2013
radiance parameters to get rid of blotching. To add another level of complexity to my problem, I am running simulations with a translucent material with the following properties: void trans testTrans
0
0
7 0.478 0.478 0.478 0.000 0.010 0.178 0.635
I have had no issues with the renderings when I use clear glazing, as seen on this image:
However the blotching-issue becomes very noticeable when I introduce translucent glazing into the scene:
For the two above cases I used the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 2
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.5
_aa_ is set to 0.2
_ad_ is set to 2048
_st_ is set to 0.5
yScale is set to 2
_ps_ is set to 4
_ar_ is set to 64
_as_ is set to 2048
_ds_ is set to 0.25
_pt_ is set to 0.1
_dr_ is set to 1
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 256
_dt_ is set to 0.25
_lr_ is set to 6
_dj_ is set to 0.5
_lw_ is set to 0.01
I ran another test with increased Radiance parameters and got the following output:
with the following parameters:
_av_ is set to 0
xScale is set to 6
_ab_ is set to 6
_dc_ is set to 0.75
_aa_ is set to 0.1
_ad_ is set to 4096
_st_ is set to 0.15
yScale is set to 6
_ps_ is set to 2
_ar_ is set to 128
_as_ is set to 4096
_ds_ is set to 0.05
_pt_ is set to 0.05
_dr_ is set to 3
_pj_ is set to 0.9
_dp_ is set to 512
_dt_ is set to 0.15
_lr_ is set to 8
_dj_ is set to 0.7
_lw_ is set to 0.005
Although the second blotching case is much better than the first, it is still very bad for hours when the sun is lower in the sky. The above images are rendered for a clear sky at 18:00 in Germany in a West-facing room.
Sorry for the long post! Can someone help? Kind regards, Örn
…
the pipe component .I have one curve ,but Pipe component outputs two pipes .This guide curve have two kinks . Pipe component fails at one of them .
Bug #3
I guess this bug may have been fixed .
Wish #1
I hope adding an "reverse list" option to the right-click menu .I think this would be useful (at least for myself).
Wish #2
I hope the SimplifyTree component would clear the zeros located at the end and middle of branch in condition the branches have same length.For example, I have a tree looks like :
A = {0;1;0} B = {0;1;0;1}
C = {0;1;0;0;1;0;0;0}
After simplify ,I get:
A = {1} B = {1;0;1}
C = {1;0;0;1}
And if the tree structure is something like:
A={0;0;1;0}
B={0;0;1;1}
C={0;0;1;2}
After simplify ,I get:
A={1;0}
B={1;1}
C={1;2}
But If the tree is:
A={0;0;0;0;0;0}
B={0;0;1;0;1;0}
C={0;0;1;0;2;0}
I get:
A={0;0}
B={1;1}
C={1;2}
WIsh #3
I came across conditions that there is no direct way to handle some Datatree matching problems . And now I think I find what's the problem :GH now lack the capability to make cross reference between lists/branches .For example, I have two trees ,the first one have two branches {0}&{1}, the other have three branches{0}&{1}&{2}.Now GH would do:
what I want is :
If this can come true ,I can say it would be very very very useful . I just have a coarse idea on how to do that: Like () wrap items,{} wrap branches, then [] wrap trees .
Say I have a tree [0] ,which have three brabches{0},{1},{2}. So [0]=[{0};{1};{2}] or [0]=[{0},{1},{2}]
If this is ruled, the following fomula is meanningful:
[0]=[{0}] (this means tree[0] just have one branch)
[0]=[{0;0;0};{0;0;1};{0;0;2}]
[0]=[{0;0};{0;1};{0;2}]=[{0;0;0};{0;0;1};{0;1};{0;2}]After that, Maybe we could match [{0};{1}] and [{0};{1};{2}] very easily (Longest List;Shortest List;Cross Reference) ??
I tried to explain the concept of "tree" to my friends ,but I am confuzed somewhere myself .For example ,how could we have a tree including branches {0},{0;0}and{0;0;0} at the same time??{0} should be the biggest tree trunk,and {0;0} is part of {0} .{0;0;0} is just the smallest trunk and store the least data inside .How could the biggert trucks are empty while only the smallest branches contain items ?(David drawed a datatree that tell this,remember??)
But if this idea is acceptable ,then I could make a fairy tale about tree to them :
(Long long ago...)
[0] is a tree ,[1] is a tree.
{0},{1},{0;0}.{0;1;0} are branches.
{0}=(0,1,2,3,4,5) is branch.
[0]= [{0;0;0};{0;0;1};{0;0;2] is a standard tree .
[0]=[{0;0;0};{0;0;2};{0;0;3] is a pruned tree.
[{0};{0;0};{0;0;0}] is an illegal tree .
Gh is lenient enough to allow the existence of illegal tree .
Gh is lenient enough to allow the existence of empty trees& empty branch&null items.
We can use PathMapper to transform an illegal tree into a legal one and vice versa . We can use PathMapper to do any things to tree&branch&item.
Wish #4
wish for Split List component : it would have a wrap option just like many other components.In this way , we can split a list of data at -1 .I think this would be useful .
wish #5
wish for a Preview toggle component .See picture below (it's fake).
this toggle look mostly like the boolean toggle, but it have a input param by which we can control the preview logically and smartly .
When there is no input ,we can control swith the preview with a double click action .This toggle component could control all gh geometry overriding the global setting .The link curve between toggle and target works just like the galapagos.
Wish #6
Wish for adding arc angle output to both Arc 3pt and Arc SED components.This would make things easier sometimes .
Wish #7
Many times I were puzzled that a same gh script would perform perfect if the input is single surface but buggy while the input is more than one surface .After debuging many times ,I just found that if one or two component of the script do things smarter ,this kind of bugs would never happen again !! Simply saying:we need a optional datatree match behavior. Say I have two datatree [{0;0};{0;1}] and [{0;0;0};{0;0;1};{0;0;2};{0;0;3};
{0;1;0};{0;1;1};{0;1;2};{0;1;3}] Normally {0;0} matchs {0;0;0},{0;1} matchs other branches (Longest List behavior).Now I need {0;0} matchs {0;0;0},{0;0;1},{0;0;2},{0;0;3} separately and {0;1} matchs {0;1;0};{0;1;1};{0;1;2};{0;1;3} separately .I cant describe this matching rules accurately but it's very obvious .I hope you can understand the meaning .
I remember David said once that he would not change anything about the datatree matching rules in order to avoid destroy people's production work .And that is my bottomline too .What I want is when I need one component to match the input datatree in this way ,I can switch it (just it ) into this mode (Assuming these is a "xxx mode" option in component's right-click menu ). In this way ,All the exist Gh def would not be destoryed.
PS. I am not carping but I found the DivideKink param input of Divide Curve component is useless except adding a segments output .
…
as one element.
Thank you
Comment by karamba on October 7, 2014 at 11:27pm
Hello Patricio, divide the beams in such a way that each boundary vertex of the shell becomes an endpoint of a beam segment.
Best, Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 8, 2014 at 8:30amDelete Comment
Hi Clemens,
I did what you suggested but now assemble element doesn´t work properly. Could you please tell me how to fix it? Thanks in advance, Patricio
8-10-14losa%20cadena.gh
Comment by karamba on October 8, 2014 at 11:59am
Hi Patricio, if you flatten the 'Elem'-input at the 'Assemble'-component the definition works. The triangular shell elements have linear displacement interpolations whereas the beam deflections are exact. In order to get correct results you should refine the shell mesh.
Best, Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 9, 2014 at 8:35amDelete Comment
Hello, succeeds in creating the mesh to the slab, and built the beam segment, but when I see the deformations are not expected because the beam is deformed as the slab.
Thanks for the help
PS: maybe I'm using the program for a type of structure that is not the most appropriate, as I saw in the examples of other structures. But this type of structure is that students taught
best regards
Patricio
9-10-14%20Example%201.gh
Comment by karamba on October 9, 2014 at 10:46am
You could use the 'Mesh Edges'-component to retrieve the naked edges and turn them into beams - see attached file:91014Example1_cp.gh
Best regards,
Clemens
Comment by Llordella Patricio on October 15, 2014 at 3:41pmDelete Comment
Dear clemens
I was doing a rough estimate of the deformation, and I can not achieve the same result with Karamba. When I make a rough estimate of the result with Karamba beams and mine are very similar, I think the problem is when I connect the shell, because there are no similar results.
I sent the GH file, and an image of the calculation
The structure is concrete The result I get is 0.58cm
thank youPatricio
15-10-14%20Example.gh
Comment by karamba yesterday
Dear Patricio,
try to increase the number of shell elements. As mentioned in the manual they are linear elements. A mesh that is too coarse leads to a response which is stiffer than the real structure.
Best,
Clemens
…
noceros 3D, en caso de aprobar satisfactoriamente el examen, se les otorga un reconocimiento avalado por el CMJ y la Secretaría del Trabajo. Este workshop va dirigido principalmente a estudiantes de arquitectura; sin embargo, ya que la parametrización es una herramienta que abarca diferentes ámbitos del diseño, se pueden integrar estudiantes de diseño industrial, artistas o estudiantes que tengan relación con lo gráfico y lo formal. Al finalizar el curso, los asistentes serán capaces de manejar Rhinoceros y Grasshopper en un nivel medio, con el objetivo de que el alumno pueda continuar aprendiendo con alguno de nuestros workshops subsiguientes o de manera autodidacta.
Las personas inscritas deben tener conocimientos básicos de geometría y de preferencia utilizar algún programa de dibujo en 2D o modelación en 3d. Rhino.GetMe Rigid // Enfocado a construir un objeto de diseño parametrizado a cualquier escala, el workshop se divide en tres módulos: Módulo 1 // Rhinoceros 3D // Una sesión de cinco horas. Módulo 2 //Grasshopper // Una sesión de cinco horas. Módulo 3 // Ejercicios prácticos /Tres sesiones de diez horas c/u. Es necesario traer el equipo necesario para trabajar, se cuenta con equipos en caso de que algún alumno no cuente con laptop pero son limitados, por favor avísanos a la brevedad si lo requieres. Se les recomienda que traigan dispositivos de almacenamiento en caso de que necesitemos compartir información.
El costo del Workshop es de $6500.00 para profesionales y $5000 pesos para estudiantes.
Pre-venta únicamente para estudiantes, hasta el día viernes 29 de junio, con un costo de $3500.00 pesos.
El cupo del evento es limitado puedes apartar tu lugar y terminar de liquidar antes del 29 de junio en pre-venta, antes del 6 de junio en admisión general.
Para hacer tu registro al workshop por favor envía un correo a workshop@transformalab.com incluyendo:
Nombre
Universidad u oficina de procedencia
Teléfono móvil
En el caso de estudiantes por favor incluyan una copia escaneada de su Constancia de Estudios para hacer válido su descuento.
Una vez recibida su información se les enviará un correo con la información necesaria para realizar su pago mediante depósito bancario, y posteriormente un mail de confirmación de su participación en el Workshop.
www.transformalab.com…
is also takes place in own system. However, this action can be also carried out successfully by a foreign reference, if this considers the focused system as own. Hence, these two criteria are considered in my reflexions, to make your criticism handier for me.
First the question must be put up, how is it in your case? Of friendly manner you answer this question perpetually with the statement that you are not a partial of the system of the architecture.
Furthermore the question would be appropriate, whether an external reference (eg CAD) determined architecture. This can be answered with no, because determining and influencing are different things.
Because you stress now your criticism as a foreign criticism, within the architecture the assuption must be put up, that this criticism is not unusual new on the one hand (because this condition were also in other times like that, and presumably also always so remain) and further more a lack of goodwill in your criticism comes to light, which perhaps distinguishes an external reference.
Based on your critique, it would be also desirable in the system of the architecture if the academic rules become satisfyingly followed, even if this is no guarantor for good academic works. Nevertheless, there is an aspect which at least tolerates the evident lack in the Interdiziplinarität of the architecture. This is the classical and still valid determination of the architecture, presumably regulates not only the actions of the architects, but also those who want to become it.
Many who stand in your criticism (the students, as well as the teachers, ... ), live in the awareness that architecture is a profession that combines as many areas around the topic of Building, and the architect is even only one dilettante among the external specialists. In this determination dilettantism is revalued rather positively, because this state the architects enables to assess the facets of a complicated building project better and to form thereby the whole result positively. To be a good architect, you should have circumspect specialists around yourself. And exactly this knows the system of the architecture, because "THE ARCHITECT" helps himself with the logic of other systems (to repair on the one hand his own deficits), and to create an artificial complexity, which ultimately aims to be the complexity of human beeing.
Here "THE ARCHITECTS" becomes a quality-spoken, which currently seems the external reference (CAD, BIM) would like to take claim for themselves.
........
If would not thought about it, this might be helpful:http://www.amazon.com/The-Alphabet-Algorithm-Writing-Architecture/dp/0262515806/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376920450&sr=8-1&keywords=mario+carpo"Finally, I’d like to restate my criticisms in general terms. If we are serious about moving architecture and urbanism away from purely artistic considerations and into a more rational arena, there has never been a better time than now. All of us have access to immense computational power which can be applied to problems that have been —until quite recently— intractable. But of course the garbage-in-garbage-out adage holds true; computation can be used to generate large amounts of complexity, but complexity does not equal worth. The only time when it makes sense to invoke computation in the design process is when there is some relevant data that needs to be computed" (David Rutton)I want to make it short, and just ask a few questions, and hope that the following questions are relevant also for you, and not be considered outside your system. i think that the weighting to such questions seem to be more valuable, not for the architects.1. What is wrong from a pure artistic intention?2. What is any sense in purely architectural discourse?3. strictly looked, can be determined sense generally in a purely architectural discourse?4. What is purely architectural discourse?5. What is Funktionalismus or Rationalismus without philosophical support? 6. Would not be the pure functional fulfilment empty ? 7. Would be not a critical position on the promise of purely rational algorithms applied?…