for this purpose. So, without paying attention to the video, this time, this is the synthesis of the process:1. generate 3d network from points and applying tensegrity physics via kangaroo:
2. option 1: generate surfaces from network using network fillet/patch tools from GeometryGym:
3. option 2: same as option 1, but this time the network is affected by the wooly paths script in order to create the 'tensioned' curves via attraction and then creating the surfaces with GeometryGym:
4. close-up:
The goal is to achieve "option 2" without using wooly paths so that the minimal surfaces are generated as the curve network is affected by kangaroo-driven tensegrity. I want the model to be a more 'real-time' simulation instead of generating the tensioned network and doing the surfaces as a post-process. I hope that explains my intention a bit more!
the wooly paths script I'm using is the "woolier paths" one or #2, I believe.
Thanks again! I hope you can help me, and sorry for any confusions!…
m, mind). These 2 are (a) the advent of large scale 3d printing and (b) the adoption of a totally new way to fabricate carbon fiber items (I mean big things like load bearing structural members - blame Volkswagen and Boeing for that).
For instance and in a very small scale see this CF chair:
Or that:
All these mean that you/we could consider possible to design large scale things (like a "monoblock" modular hangar where the roof is fused with the columns - exactly like the chair as above and/or your initial requirement - minus the ugly basement formation).
In the mean time get the new "divine" version (2 choices : either you or God decides things concerning the "bridges").
Until next update
1. TSplines 3.4. they don't give any preview (and pipe is EXTREMELY slow) whilst 3.5 they turn components red. Karma without any doubt. Beta 4 has more bugs than Madonna had lovers.
2. Choose "God" as the placement mode and observe that the main issue here is to "fuse" properly "bridges" that potentially clash (easy for TSplines).
3. Although random is the new trend in Architecture/Design (but trends come and go) ... controlling randomly AND properly geometry is more fuzzy than it appears on first sight ( for doing something that could(?) stand(?) any future critic, he he).
4. Rhino is actually a surface modeler ... meaning that stuff that CATIA/NX do are rather unthinkable especially concerning the "frozen" state of a polysurface (Smart Surface for those in the Microstation bandwagon). You'll see why I'm saying this when this definition starts to find the right route (for instance filleting complex stitched surfaces etc etc) . On the other hand various Rhino tools are not exposed to GH (VBA/C is needed).
More this weekend.
My mail is pfotiad0@remove this@hotmail.com
May the Force (the dark option) be with us, best, Peter …
rder to deal with the contents of the MERO structure (like glass, panels, polycarbonate). That is what the C# does already.
3. Vectors (a la "Umbrella" sticks) in order to place correctly your MERO nodes (the "hexagon" brackets - so to speak). That is what the big C# (the one that I've send to you some time ago) does already.
4. Calculations (lengths, angles) for each node against the other related nodes and the points derived from dividing the MERO square "tubes". For a given node these points are variable (from 2 [when in the "bounds" of mesh] to 6 ["typical" middle point, so to speak].
5. Demo block instances in order to see first hand what GH can actually do (that's WOW stuff: you slide a slider and "several" real-life components are placed in 3d space in real-time, he he).
6. Node connectivity data for the obvious (assembling the MERO on site).
7. Some assembly "simulation" capability (we do this today and this tomorrow ...)
So forget the single carrot (plenty carrots for you soon) for a while and answer to the most critical question: Based on what you've displayed to me (Skype) what is your policy against the MERO node itself?
I mean: we don't deal with a classic MERO ball type here (meaning variable drilling axis per ball). Meaning that the "hexagon" bracket (if I may use the term) IS VARIABLE. Meaning: you need a "module" that can being adapted against "every" possible (logical) angle value? (and compose the bracket?) Or you gonna fabricate the "brackets" on a per node basis?
And what if we had a planar glazing system? (same principle, more expensive, 100 times more WOW).
BTW: The best man in the world to do "similar things" with "hinged" custom aluminum systems (like doing the blue facade that you've displayed to me with some semi structural/structural system) he's a very close friend of mine. He's based in Dubai UAE.…
truss right?
2. Trusses are NOT made via lines ... they are made by real-life components like balls, rods and other mysterious (and maybe ominous, he he) paraphernalia.Good news for you: lot's of C# stuff around me that do that (but they are not exactly "entry-level").
3. PRIOR talking to ANY FEA/FIM thingy you need to address clash situations: I mean IF a given node is doable or not (because lines they don't rise clash issues ... but rods/struts/tubes/cones do). Good news for you: lot's of C# stuff around me that do that (but they are not exactly "entry-level").
4. Then you have to use some real-life (or at least some "realistic") components like the ones found in, say, a classic MERO "ball" system (and especially the adapter cones between the balls and the tubes). Or at least "some" of them that outline a "realistic" truss.Good news for you: see above.
5. Then you could validate the whole structure AND the parts VS structural loads: I mean there's absolutely no meaning "doing the whole" without taking into account the load bearing capability of the parts. For instance, say, what happens if the geometry (i.e. the topology) is "capable" but a given bolt is weak? That sort of stuff.
6. Now ... this is Academic ... but following the "abstract" way (I don't care about bolts because I'm a student)... this could teach you the entirely wrong way to use FEA/FIM for validating any structural ability of ... anything. And besides FEA/FIM is used for making the damn thing in the real-world ... and that involves (unfortunately) "some" bolts and nuts.
I can arrange a (rather long) Skype session for a demo of all the above ... but first I strongly advise to post here a finished thing (in terms of 3d component geometry) ... and THEN we can examine the whole strategy: what to export, how and especially what could be an "interactive" (both ways) protocol/strategy in order to give the green light for that truss.
BTW: Kangaroo is a physics engine and as such it's used as an abstract "shape" finder. I have no idea what Karamba does ... but always have in mind: BIM things ... are BIM things (meaning that without a serious BIM umbrella ... don't go out when it rains).…
to do once I figured out how you use only a small portion of each of my generated curves to make the 360 degree Loft surface. I had a huge AHA! moment when I realized the complete Loft surface really only needs a small portion of the generated curves rotated around to form a closed (except for top & bottom) surface. That is a major new insight for me and I appreciate you pointing it out.
I also tweaked the Twist angle parameter a bit so the resulting positive and negative Twist surfaces, when combined, yielded a result that was closer to my original shape. This is when I discovered something very interesting.
When I baked/exported the result using just one of the 2 twisted surfaces I got an STL file that had no errors, that 3D Builder was able to simplify from a 37 MB file to a 3 MB file, and that sliced A-OK. But, when I combined the left and right twisted surfaces, I was back with my same set of problems: the exported STL file had many errors, could not be fixed, and did not slice properly.
I went back to my original layout that uses the complete set of generated curves to create the Loft surface and found I got exactly the same results - using only one twisted surface worked fine, but nothing worked when the left and right twisted surfaces were combined. By nothing I mean I tried all the standard methods (GH Join and Sunion, Rhino Solid/Union, Join, etc.) What I think this means is that the Loft surface behaves the same, and apparently is the same, regardless if it is generated by rotating strips or by using complete closed curves.
Furthermore, I am guessing the problems with the combined/exported STL file made from both left and right twisted surfaces has to do with overlapping/coincident parts of each one - like the top & bottom planar surfaces and some of the wiggly parts.
If I am correct about this then it suggests to me that there is some sort of glitch in Rhino's STL Export function. This is surprising to me since I though an STL file only paid attention to the external shape of thngs,and did not know or care about any inside stuff. Of course this is all conjecture on my part, but at least for now seems it will be impossible for me to actually print the double-twisted geometry.…
Added by Birk Binnard at 3:52pm on September 23, 2016
len , I lost all of my work (at least the 3d modeling)
And I frankly if I want to participate I´ll need to finnish up the board and i cant do the renders on my own I need more time , but I only have until 11:59 pm of July 6 to finnish up one render, if you feel up to the challenge, whoever completes it will receive 290 dollars (its all I can give) to any account you want. I basically need one single image.
It consists on 3 towers, with an organic facade, I'm including the competition board I had saved on in my dropbox, I want more or less the same perspective shown on the left of the board.
Sorry, but i'm desperate, I had it all done but well cant control everything in life i guess, only do it if you feel you can pull off a professional render.
Thanks. (contact me and I´ll give you more info on the towers, I was able to save some limited sections and floor plans .... but yeah.. limited, so you´ll have to base your work on the images I provide here.
I can give some files now, including images of the physical model.
Board: http://i.minus.com/idYpFK844DWns.jpg
Physical model: http://imgur.com/a/PywJa
Hope its enough, I'm also including one image i had where I explored the footprints of all the buildings, but its just for reference.
I know theres barely enough time to finnish it... but I dont know what else to do, do you guys think i should probably just take a good photograph of the model and run with that? I feel that would probably look very unprofessional :l but I really dont have a choice here
…
mple:
I wish to populate a rectangle with some random points, but I need them to be more dense at the base of the rectangle and then linearly getting more and more sparse towards the top.
This is how I worked it around:
1) first I have created a triangular prism,
2) then I've populated its volume with some random points
3) and finally I've projected them on the plane I'm wishing to populate.
But I don't really like the final result since the points are not as nicely spaced as if they were produced by the "Populate 2d" command. They look kind of "clumpy":
Do you have any better idea?
The best thing would be to be able to put a grayscale bitmap underneath and use it as a "density map"...
Here you have the .gh file I made:
prism.gh
Thank you very very much for the help! :)
By the way:
While I was preparing my 3d random distribution of points I've spotted a weird behaviour of the random command:
Even if the seeds are all different, for some values of them the points still belong to some common planes...
To solve that I had to jitter the output of one of the Random components.
I suppose this is a weakness of the pseudorandom generator implemented in the random component, isn't it?…
ilion.
Then i sketched the outline curves in rhino with a few control points. The building is symetric so i only draw one side. But i'm not sure what is better for a voroni. a sharp or a soft surface? Or dose i need points?
So i have some questions:
1. how can i loft the curves correctly? My problem is that if i divide my curves for more control points, grasshopper automatically change my curve. thats ok but than i've the problem with a short curve, which fit bevor with the large one, but after the devision it can't connect.
So i tryed to duplicate the long curve and split it but with the shatter battery it dosen't work. It always cut the curve somewhere.
2. my next problem is, the curves in rhino should be my main construction, which is always visible. so i decided to offset the curves that i got a colum. but i don't know how to orient the offset curves in the xyz axis.
3. hopefully if i have the surfaces, how can i build a voroni which is offsetet, and has maybe some different thicknesses? :D
Would be really great if s.o. can help me. I tried a lot but not every thing is simple.
Sorry for my bad english.
Thx max
Here are my files:
FCP_MAX_GH_konstruktion_1.3dm
FCP_MAX_GH_konstruktion_1.gh
…
that are available, I found myself in a quite difficult problematic.
I did a lot of google search/work and found some information, but still kind of haven't got the information that I need or want to use. Note: Our school has provided us 3 hours of basic Grasshopper tutorial and one hour of Honeybee/Ladybug temperature tutorial (with weather data etc).
For now I have used Grasshopper and Kangaroo, haven't quite implemented other plugins.
What I want to achieve?I want to create a basic wind simulation in a room (cube at first, but then add more space and use different models) that I can change inside grasshopper. For example I have two openings. I blow wind inside the object from one opening and it goes out the other opening. When I change the wind parameters I can analyse the wind and data that is flowing through the cube.
Is there a way I can visualize the wind?
I have seen different solutions, but mainly vectors with colors that are visualized as wind direction and temperature. Is it possible to make it 3D that I can actually make a real-life model out of it?
Why cube?At first I want to test it and see how it works, if it is viable or not. In the end I would create a facade that is designed for natural ventilation. I am kind of trying to put two projects together. One for the wind analysis, the other for the 3D-Result that is created with the wind. It might be a quite awful that I am asking, but I don't know where to go after doing the google research. Also, some Grasshopper links I found that might help describe the situation. http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/wind-analysis-by-grasshopperhttp://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/wind-cfd-change-form(Should I approach it with Ladybug and Ecotect?)
Thanks, A
…
d the workshop PDF from this link: http://goo.gl/bcvRNH Download event poster from this link: http://goo.gl/Q0KWCM Brief: Cairo is filled with barriers controlling people movements, suppressing them as well as detaining green and public spaces to the extent that most people have been taking these spaces for granted. Public spaces have been for a while the periphery of our daily life. We will explore in this workshop how we can manipulate and alter people’s perception and direct their attention to how these spaces are integral for city life. This exploration will be backed up by intensive technical tutorials introducing computational design and fabrication techniques and tools mainly Rhino, Grasshopper, Geco and Ecotect. Not only will this be the typical technical workshop, but rather you will also have the chance to be guided step by step on how these tools are used through out different design stages in a real world scenario. Design prototypes will be produced through 3D printing, the main workshop output will be a fabricated one to one functional model for one of the designs using our new in-house CNC machine. Tutors (check the PDF for bio): Olga Kovrikova, MArch DIA Alexandr Kalachev, MArch DIA Karim Soliman, MArch DIA Islam Ibrahim, MArch DIA Sherif Tarabishy, B.Sc. AAST Application: Application deadline 1 September 2013 ** For students (undergrad / Master), teachers and PhD proof of status is required (university ID with a date or a certificate of enrollment) to apply for the students package. Packages (choose one of the following in the application form): 1. Standard registration Course fee is 4250 EGP For Students 3500 EGP 2. Early bird registration discounted fee For Professionals 3750 EGP For Students 3000 EGP ** Early bird offer ends on 14 August 2013 3. Group registrations discounted fee (5 or more) For Students 20% off - You will have to fill out an application form here: http://goo.gl/0QxAga - You will need to submit your CV and Short Portfolio (max. 10 MB) to info@morph-d.com, email subject: “Morphing Norms Application” (we will decide if you are eligible for an early bird discount or not based on the date of your email submission) - We will confirm receiving emails from all applicants. Successful applicants will be contacted 5 days after each deadline (early bird/final) and will have to confirm participation within 3 days, if they fail to do so, places will be given to others on the waiting list. - A maximum of 30 applicants will be selected.
…