Search Results - 浙江福利彩票3d走势-『2TBH·COM』大乐透预测开奖号--2023年3月19日6时37分59秒.H5c2a3.s82ogwowm

Blog Post: Aether – simple speedy spatial fields for Grasshopper

Added by Daniel Piker at 7:25am on December 16, 2014

Topic: TetRhino - a wrapper for Tetgen: rtitions." (http://wias-berlin.de/software/index.jsp?id=TetGen&lang=1) To continue with my wrapping career, TetRhino (or Tetrino) is a .NET wrapper for the well-known and pretty amazing TetGen mesh tetrahedralization program. It provides one new GH component for discretizing or remeshing objects using TetGen. Basic tetrahedralization functionality is exposed with a few different output types that can be controlled. At the moment, the only control for tetrahedra sizes is the minimum ratio, which is controlled by a slider. This is hardcoded to always be above 1.0-1.1, as it is very easy to generate a LOT of data (and crash)... The libs are divided again into different modules to allow flexibility and fun with or without Rhino and GH, so have fun. All 4 libs should be placed in a folder (maybe called 'tetgen') in your GH libraries folder. Remember to unblock. Once again, the libs are provided as-is, with no guarantee of support for now, as I use them internally and do not intend to develop this into a shiny, polished plug-in. If there is enough interest, I can tidy up the code-base and upload it somewhere if someone more savvy than me wants to play. TetgenGH.gha - Grasshopper assembly which adds the 'Tetrahedralize' component to Mesh -> Triangulation. TetgenRC.dll - RhinoCommon interface to the Tetgen wrapper. TetgenSharp.dll - dotNET wrapper for Tetgen. TetgenWrapper.dll - Actual wrapper for Tetgen. Obviously, credit where credit is due for this excellent and tiny piece of software: "The development of TetGen is executed at the Weierstrass Institute for Applied Analysis and Stochastics in the research group of Numerical Mathematics and Scientific Computing." See http://wias-berlin.de/software/index.jsp?id=TetGen&lang=1 for more details about TetGen. To wrap up, some notes about the inputs: These are the possible integer Flags (F) values and resultant outputs for the GH component: 0 - Output M yields a closed boundary mesh. Useful for simply remeshing your input mesh. 1 - Output M yields a list of tetra meshes. 2 - Output I yields a DataTree of tetra indices, grouped in lists of 4. Output P yields a list of points to which the tetra indices correspond. 3 - Output I yields a DataTree of edge indices, grouped in lists of 2. Output P yields a list of points to which the edge indices correspond. Useful for lots of things, very easy to create lines from this to plug into K2 or something for some ropey FEA (or not so ropey!) ;) As this component can potentially create a LOT of data, especially with dense meshes, care should be taken with the MinRatio (R) input. This will try to constrain the tetra to be more or less elongated, which also means that the lower this value gets, the more tetra need to be added to satisfy this constraint. Start with very high values and lower them until satisfactory. Hopefully shouldn't be an issue, but it's possible that you need the 2015 Microsoft C++ Redistributable. Happy tetrahedralizing... UPDATE: The tetgen.zip has been updated with some fixes. UPDATE2: This is now available on Food4Rhino: http://www.food4rhino.com/app/tetrino …; Added by Tom Svilans at 1:27am on October 24, 2017

Blog Post: Exoskeleton and macro windows, Morpheus style: End of February 2017, McNeel published the webinar about the design and fabrication of the Morpheus Hotel and Tower in Macau.…; Added by Laurent DELRIEU at 1:20pm on March 29, 2017

Topic: ZBrush Is Now A Grasshopper Plugin: ome work to create a ZScript macro for custom routines, but you can record those in ZBrush and then merely need to edit them into my script, inline, as bulk multiple-lines you just paste in, no problem as long as you strip the ZBrush button definition at the beginning. ZBrush has a very high initial learning curve because of its non-standard interface. However, it has the world's most powerful quad remeshing and now mesh Booleans too. I needed a replacement for slow and especially non-robust marching cubes (Cocoon/Monolith/Dodo/Aether etc. on Grasshopper) that tended to bog down or blow up. IntraLattice was a step in a good direction but it can't merge fattened lines that merely cross each other with no breaks or that physically overlap on purpose to have many curve on in to a hub. But with $800 ZBrush 4R8, the latest version, that I can create English language ZScripts for, I suddenly have, often in the blink of an eye, or at worst a few seconds, right back into Rhino Grasshopper, a perfectly joined, airtight and smoothed mesh blending of upwards of thousands of input mesh pieces that overlap in ways Rhino will never Boolean union. There is no complicated installation of anything since it's all done in Python. The ZBrush program itself pops up while it works, and is then automatically backgrounded to bring you back to Grasshopper. It keeps running though, for fast iterations with no program startup time. This is a general toolkit to expose myriad very advanced features of ZBrush into being just another Grasshopper plug-in like the rest. It works by accepting a Grasshopper mesh and writing it to disk as an OBJ file, then incorporates ZBrush settings for a given command into a text format ZScript file, also written to disk from Python based on Grasshopper inputs, then ZBrush is told to run the script via Windows command line, and the exported OBJ output is read back from disk back into a Rhino Grasshopper mesh, in about a hundred lines of code. Despite a change in mesh definition in Rhinocommon from version 5 to 6, I made it work on both versions. So far this is only one command, the newly improved mesh Boolean union. It gives quad meshes, but they still look healthy when quickly triangulated in Rhino (as seen on top, above). The ZBrush ZRemesher is utterly astounding in ability to transform any mesh into a direction following, error free quad mesh that can be converted to NURBS actually, via T-Splines smooth mode. That will be the next port to Grasshopper. I hope architects pick up on this more orderly manner of patterning surfaces than the alien slime of random point Voronoi. Commercial software has the best code, not open source stuff, so far, so this is serious work to bring world class tools into Grasshopper where we can rapidly prototype computational strategies. Here is a thread with several examples of ZBrush Boolean union remeshing applied to 3D trusses, compared to both IntraLattice and marching cubes: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/custom-unit-cell-bug-in-intralattice-plug-in?commentId=2985220%3AComment%3A1828609 The same strategy of generating script files I used to port OpenFlipper, here, for triangle remeshing, which can now be combined with ZBrush Boolean unions of arbitrary assemblies of mesh units: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/best-uniform-remesher-for-patterning-organic-suraces UPDATE: I revamped the workflow so now components feed raw ZScript into a sequencer. Then only a single ZScript is assembled and sent to ZBrush so Python never gets ahead of ZBrush (!): It is easy to DIY roll your own now: …; Added by Nik Willmore at 6:48am on October 12, 2017

Comment on: Topic 'Pain Points in Grasshopper': r." I'm sorry to hear that, I take the interface and ease-of-use rather seriously so this sounds like a fundamental failure on my part. On the other hand, Grasshopper isn't supposed to be on a par with most other 3D programs. It is emphatically not meant for manual/direct modelling. If you would normally tackle a problem by drawing geometry by hand, Grasshopper is not (and should never be advertised as) a good alternative."What in other programs is a dialog box, is 8 or 10 components strung together in grasshopper. The wisdom for this I often hear among the grasshopper community is that this allows for parametric design."Grasshopper ships with about 1000 components (rounded to the nearest power of ten). I'm adding more all the time, either because new functionality has been exposed in the Rhino SDK or because a certain component makes a lot of sense to a lot of people. Adding pre-canned components that do the same as '8 or 10 components strung together' for the heck of it will balloon the total number of components everyone has to deal with. If you find yourself using the same 8 to 10 components together all the time, then please mention it on this forum. A lot of the currently existing components have been added because someone asked for it."[...] has a far cleaner and more intuitive interface. So does SolidWorks, Inventor, CATIA, NX, and a bunch of others."Again, GH was not designed to be an alternative to these sort of modellers. I don't like referring to GH as 'parameteric' as that term has been co-opted by relational modellers. I prefer to use 'algorithmic' instead. The idea behind parameteric seems to be that one models by hand, but every click exists within a context, and when the context changes the software figures out where to move the click to. The idea behind algorithmic is that you don't model by hand.This is not to say there is no value in the parametric approach. Obviously it is a winning strategy and many people love to use it. We have considered adding some features to GH that would make manual modelling less of a chore and we would still very much like to do so. However this is such a large chunk of work that we have to be very careful about investing the time. Before I start down this road I want to make sure that the choice I'm making is not 'lame-ass algorithmic modeller with some lame-ass parametrics tacked on' vs. 'kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on'. Visual Programming.I'm not exactly sure I understand your grievance here, but I suspect I agree. The visual part is front and centre at the moment and it should remain there. However we need to improve upon it and at the same time give programmers more tools to achieve what they want. Context sensitivity."There is no reason a program in 2014 should allow me to make decisions that will not work. For example, if a component input is in all cases incompatible with another component's output, I shouldn't be able to connect them."Unfortunately it's not as simple as that. Whether or not a conversion between two data types makes sense is often dependent on the actual values. If you plug a list of curves into a Line component, none of them may be convertible. Should I therefore not allow this connection to be made? What if there is a single curve that could be converted to a line? What if you want to make the connection now, but only later plan to add some convertible curves to the data? What you made the connection back when it was valid, but now it's no longer valid, wouldn't it be weird if there was a connection you couldn't make again?I've started work on GH2 and one of the first things I'm writing now is the new data-conversion logic. The goal this time around is to not just try and convert type A into type B, but include information about what sort of conversion was needed (straightforward, exotic, far-fetched. etc.) and information regarding why that type was assigned.You are right that under some conditions, we can be sure that a conversion will always fail. For example connecting a Boolean output with a Curve input. But even there my preferred solution is to tell people why that doesn't make sense rather than not allowing it in the first place. Sliders."I think they should be optional."They are optional."The “N” should turn into the number if set."What if you assign more than one integer? I think I'd rather see a component with inputs 'N', 'P' and 'X' rather than '5', '8' and '35.7', but I concede that is a personal preference."But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly."Agreed. Components."Give components a little “+” or a drawer on the bottom or something that by clicking, opens the component into something akin to a dialog box. This should give access to all of the variables in the component. I shouldn't have to r-click on each thing on a component to do all of the settings."I was thinking of just zooming in on a component would eventually provide easier ways to access settings and data."Could some of these items disappear if they are contextually inappropriate or gray out if they're unlikely?"It's almost impossible for me to know whether these things are 'unlikely' in any given situation. There are probably some cases where a suggestion along the lines of "Hey, this component is about to run 40,524 times. It seems like it would make sense to Graft the 'P' input." would be useful. Integration."Why isn't it just live geometry?"This is an unfortunate side-effect of the way the Rhino SDK was designed. Pumping all my geometry through the Rhino document would severely impact performance and memory usage. It also complicates the matter to an almost impossible degree as any command and plugin running in Rhino now has access to 'my' geometry."Maybe add more Rhino functionality to GH. GH has no 3D offset."That's the plan moving forward. A lot of algorithms in Rhino (Make2D, FilletEdge, Shelling, BlendSrf, the list goes on) are not available as part of the public SDK. The Rhino development team is going to try and rectify this for Rhino6 and beyond. As soon as these functions become available I'll start adding them to GH (provided they make sense of course).On the whole I agree that integration needs a lot of work, and it's work that has to happen on both sides of the isle. Documentation.Absolutely. Development for GH1 has slowed because I'm now working on GH2. We decided that GH1 is 'feature complete', basically to avoid feature creep. GH2 is a ground-up rewrite so it will take a long time until something is ready for testing. During this time, minor additions and of course bug fixes will be available for GH1, but on a much lower frequency.Documentation is woefully inadequate at present. The primer is being updated (and the new version looks great), but for GH2 we're planning a completely new help system. People have been hired to provide the content. With a bit of luck and a lot of work this will be one of the main selling points of GH2. 2D-ness."I know you'll disagree completely, but I'm sticking to this. How else could an omission like offsetsurf happen?"I don't fully disagree. A lot of geometry is either flat or happens inside surfaces. The reason there's no shelling (I'm assuming that's what you meant, there are two Offset Surface components in GH) is because (a) it's a very new feature in Rhino and doesn't work too well yet and (b) as a result of that isn't available to plugins. Organisation.Agreed. We need to come up with better ways to organise, document, version, share and simplify GH files. GH1 UI is ok for small projects (<100 components) but can't handle more complexity. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the feedback, I really do, but I want to be honest and open about my own plans and where they might conflict with your wishes. Grasshopper is being used far beyond the boundaries of what we expected and it's clear that there are major shortcomings that must be addressed before too long. We didn't get it right with the first version, I don't expect we'll get it completely right with the second version but if we can improve upon the -say- five biggest drawbacks (performance, documentation, organisation, plugin management and no mac version) I'll be a happy puppy. -- David Rutten david@mcneel.com…; Added by David Rutten at 2:11am on August 2, 2014

Blog Post: Integration Design Process: toward Energy and Structure Compatibility based upon Iranian Traditional Architecture Principles

Download Link of Presentations in Higher Quality…

Added by Mahdi Soheyli Fard at 8:21pm on October 18, 2015

Topic: NEW RELEASE OF LADYBUG AND HONEYBEE!: ion of both Ladybug and Honeybee. Notable among the new components are 51 new Honeybee components for setting up and running energy simulations and 15 new Ladybug components for running detailed comfort analyses. We are also happy to announce the start of comprehensive tutorial series on how to use the components and the first one on getting started with Ladybug can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-Sj_XGz3kzHUoWmpWDXNep1O A second one on how to use the new Ladybug comfort components can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-Sho45_D4BV1HKcIz7oVmZ8v Here is a short list highlighting some of the capabilities of this current Honeybee release: 1) Run EnergyPlus and OpenStudio Simulations - A couple of components to export your HBZones into IDF or OSM files and run energy simulations right from the grasshopper window! Also included are several components for adjusting the parameters of the simulations and requesting a wide range of possible outputs. 2) Assign EnergyPlus Constructions - A set of components that allow you to assign constructions from the OpenStudio library to your Honeybee objects. This also includes components for searching through the OpenStudio construction/material library and components to create your own constructions and materials. 3) Assign EnergyPlus Schedules and Loads - A set of components for assigning schedules and Loads from the Openstudio library to your Honeybee zones. This includes the ability to auto-assign these based on your program or to tweak individual values. You can even create your own schedules from a stream of 8760 values with the new “Create CSV Schedule” component. Lastly, there is a component for converting any E+ schedule to 8760 values, which you can then visualize with the standard Ladybug components 4) Assign HVAC Systems - A set of components for assigning some basic ASHRAE HVAC systems that can be run with the Export to OpenStudio component. You can even adjust the parameters of these systems right in Grasshopper. Note: The ASHRAE systems are only available for OpenStudio and can’t be used with Honeybee’s EnergyPlus component. Also, only ideal air, VAV and PTHP systems are currently available but more will be on their way soon! 5) Import And Visualize EnergyPlus Results - A set of components to import numerical EnergyPlus simulation results back into grasshopper such that they can be visualized with any of the standard Ladybug components (ie. the 3D chart or Psychrometric chart). Importers are made for zone-level results as well as surface results and surfaces results can be easily separated based on surface type. This also means that E+ results can be analyzed with the new Ladybug comfort calculator components and used in shade or natural ventilation studies. Lastly, there are a set of components for coloring zone/surface geometry with EnergyPlus results and for coloring the shades around zones with shade desirability. 6) Increased Radiance and Daysim Capabilities - Several updates have also been made to the existing Radiance and Daysim components including parallel Radiance Image-based analysis. 7) Visualize HBObject Attributes - A few components have been added to assist with setting up honeybee objects and ensuing the the correct properties have been assigned. These include components to separate surfaces based on boundary condition and components to label surfaces and zones with virtually any of their EnergyPlus or Radiance attributes. 8) WIP Grizzly Bear gbxml Exporter - Lastly, the release includes an WIP version of the Grizzly Bear gbXML exporter, which will continue to be developed over the next few months. And here’s a list of the new Ladybug capabilities: 1) Comfort Models - Three comfort models that have been translated to python for your use in GH: PMV, Adaptive, and Outdoor (UTCI). Each of these models has a “Comfort Calculator” component for which you can input parameters like temperature and wind speed to get out comfort metrics. These can be used in conjunction with EPW data or EnergyPlus results to calculate comfort for every hour of the year. 2) Ladybug Psychrometric Chart - A new interactive psychrometric chart that was made possible thanks to the releasing of the Berkely Center for the Built Environment Comfort Tool Code (https://github.com/CenterForTheBuiltEnvironment/comfort-tool). The new psychrometric chart allows you to move the comfort polygon around based on PMV comfort metrics, plot EPW or EnergyPlus results on the psych chart, and see how many hours are made comfortable in each case. The component also allows you to plot polygons representing passive building strategies (like internal heat gain or evaporative cooling), which will adjust dynamically with the comfort polygon and are based on the strategies included in Climate Consultant. 3) Solar Adjusted MRT and Outdoor Shade Evaluator - A component has been added to allow you to account for shortwave solar radiation in comfort studies by adjusting Mean Radiant Temperature. This adjusted MRT can then be factored into outdoor comfort studies and used with an new Ladybug Comfort Shade Benefit Evaluator to design outdoor shades and awnings. 4) Wind Speed - Two new components for visualizing wind profile curves and calculating wind speed at particular heights. These allow users to translate EPW wind speed from the meteorological station to the terrain type and height above ground for their site. They will also help inform the CFD simulations that will be coming in later releases. 5) Sky Color Visualizer - A component has been added that allows you to visualize a clear sky for any hour of the year in order to get a sense of the sky qualities and understand light conditions in periods before or after sunset. Ready to Start? Here is what you will need to do: Download Honeybee and Ladybug from the same link here. Make sure that you remove any old version of Ladybug and Honeybee if you have one, as mentioned on the Ladybug group page. You will also need to install RADIANCE, DAYSIM and ENERGYPLUS on your system. We already sent a video about how to get RADIANCE and Daysim installed (link). You can download EnergyPlus 8.1 for Windows from the DOE website (http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/?utm_source=EnergyPlus&utm_medium=redirect&utm_campaign=EnergyPlus%2Bredirect%2B1). “EnergyPlus is a whole building energy simulation program that engineers, architects, and researchers use to model energy and water use in buildings.” “OpenStudio is a cross-platform (Windows, Mac, and Linux) collection of software tools to support whole building energy modeling using EnergyPlus and advanced daylight analysis using Radiance.” Make sure that you install ENERGYPLUS in a folder with no spaces in the file path (e.g. “C:\Program Files” has a space between “Program” and “Files”). A good option for each is C:\EnergyPlusV8-1-0, which is usually the default locations when you run the downloaded installer. New Example Files! We have put together a large number of new updated example files and you should use these to get yourself started. You can download them from the link on the group page. New Developers: Since the last release, we have had several new members join the Ladybug + Honeybee developer team: Chien Si Harriman - Chien Si has contributed a large amount of code and new components in the OpenStudio workflow including components to add ASHRAE HVAC systems into your energy models and adjust their parameters. He is also the author of the Grizzly Bear gbxml exporter and will be continuing work on this in the following months. Trygve Wastvedt - Trygve has contributed a core set of functions that were used to make the new Ladybug Colored Sky Visualizer and have also helped sync the Ladybug Sunpath to give sun positions for the current year of 2014 Abraham Yezioro - Abraham has contributed an awesome new bioclimatic chart for comfort analyses, which, despite its presence in the WIP tab, is nearly complete! Djordje Spasic - Djordje has contributed a number of core functions that were used to make the new Ladybug Wind Speed Calculator and Wind Profile Visualizer components and will be assisting with workflows to process CFD results in the future. He also has some more outdoor comfort metrics in the works. Andrew Heumann - Andrew contributed an endlessly useful list item selector, which can adjust based on the input list, and has multiple applications throughout Ladybug and Honeybee. One of the best is for selecting zone-level programs after selecting an overall building program. Alex Jacobson - Alex also assisted with the coding of the wind speed components. And, as always, a special thanks goes to all of our awesome users who tested the new components through their several iterations. Special thanks goes to Daniel, Michal, Francisco, and Agus for their continuous support. Thanks again for all the support, great suggestions and comments. We really cannot thank you enough. Enjoy!, Ladybug + Honeybee Development Team PS: If you want to be updated about the news about Ladybug and Honeybee like Ladybug’s Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/LadyBugforGrasshopper) or follow ladybug’s twitter account (@ladybug_tool). …; Added by Chris Mackey to Ladybug Tools at 11:49pm on September 14, 2014

Comment on: Topic 'Voronoi relaxation (vorlax, voronax), kangaroo': o express my gratitude. I've been experimenting with your definitions (and still am), but let me extend my question. Actually what I'm trying to achieve, is to recreate another project by Andrew Kudless, the spore lamp (I mentioned the Chrysalis at the beginning just because of the animation, which wasn't included in the Spore Lamp presentation). Basically the spore lamp seems to me to be something like a preliminary study to the Chrysalis III project (I think it's a similar approach). Andrew stated on his site that he used kangaroo for this project, so the Spore Lamp consists in my opinion either of a relaxed voronoi 3d diagram (b-rep, b-rep intersection) on a sphere which then has been planarized, or more likely it is a sort of relaxed facet dome. The trick is to: 1. obtain a nicely-balanced voronoish diagram (or facet dome cells) 2. keep each cell/polyline planar (or force them with kangaroo to be planar) in order to move scale and loft them later on. Here is what I have by now. (files: matsys spore lamp attempt) That's the closest appearance that I got so far (simple move scale and loft of facet dome cells with the amount of transformations being proportional to the power of the initial cell area: bigger cell = bigger opening etc.) - with no relaxation of the diagram. But it's obviously not the same thing as the matsys design. Here are some of my attempts of facet dome relaxation, but well, it certainly still not the right approach, and most importantly I don't know how to keep or force the cells to be planar after the relaxation. 1. pulling vertices to a sphere - no anchor points. That obviously doesn't make sense at all, but the relaxation without anchor points gives at the beginning a pattern that is closer to what I am looking for. (files: relaxation 01) 2. pulling vertices to a sphere - two faces of the initial facet dome anchored (files: relaxation 02) 3. pulling vertices to the initial geometry (facet dome) no anchor points (files: relaxation 03) The cell pattern of the lamp kinda looks like this: you can find it here: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/kangaroo-0-095-released?g... Done with Plankton (of course without the "gradient increase" appearance), but in fact not, I took a look at Daniel Parker's Plankton example files, and it's not quite the same thing. Also the cells aren't planar... The last problem is that during the relaxation attempts that I did, the biggest initial cells became enormous, and it's not like that in the elegant project by Andrew Kudless, that I'd like to achieve. So to sum up: Goal no 1: Obtain an elegant voronoi /facet dome cell pattern on a sphere (or an ellipsoid surface, whatever). Goal no 2: Keep the cells planar in order to be able to loft them later and obtain those pyramidal forms, and assemble easily Any ideas? Or maybe there's a completely different approach to that?…; Added by Benoit Martel at 4:12pm on March 1, 2016

Topic: voronoi/facet dome pattern relaxation on a sphere surface: erning how to do that on a sphere. So I know already all the different approches of how to get a relaxed voronoi pattern on a free-form open surface, but still don't know how to obtain the same elegant effect on a sphere (or an ellipsoid closed surface, whatever), or how to relax the facet dome cells. Andrew stated on his site that he used kangaroo for this project, so the Spore Lamp consists in my opinion either of a relaxed voronoi 3d diagram (b-rep, b-rep intersection) on a sphere the cells of which have been planarized later on, or more likely it is a sort of relaxed facet dome. The trick is to: 1. obtain a nicely-balanced voronoish diagram (or facet dome cells) on a sphere 2. keep each cell/polyline planar (or force them with kangaroo to be planar) in order to move scale and loft them later on. Here is what I have by now.(files: matsys spore lamp attempt) That's the closest appearance that I got so far (simple move scale and loft of facet dome cells with the amount of transformations being proportional to the power of the initial cell area: bigger cell = bigger opening etc.) - with no relaxation of the diagram. But it's obviously not the same thing as the matsys design. Here are some of my attempts of facet dome relaxation, but well, it's certainly still not the right approach, and most importantly I don't know how to keep or force the cells to be planar after the relaxation. 1. pulling vertices to a sphere - no anchor points. That obviously doesn't make sense at all, but the relaxation without anchor points gives at the beginning a pattern that is closer to what I am looking for. (files: relaxation 01) 2. pulling vertices to a sphere - two faces of the initial facet dome anchored (files: relaxation 02) 3. pulling vertices to the initial geometry (facet dome) no anchor points (files: relaxation 03) The cell pattern of the lamp kinda looks like this: You can find it here: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/kangaroo-0-095-releasedgroupUrl=kangaroo&x=1&groupId=2985220%3AGroup%3A120977&id=2985220%3ATopic%3A972434&page=2#comments Done with Plankton (of course without the "gradient increase" appearance), but in fact not, I took a look at Daniel Parker's Plankton example files, and it's not quite the same thing. Also the cells aren't planar... The last problem is that during the relaxation attempts that I did, the biggest initial cells became enormous, and it's not like that in the elegant project by Andrew Kudless, that I'd like to achieve. So to sum up: Goal no 1: Obtain an elegant voronoi /facet dome cell pattern on a sphere (or an ellipsoid surface, whatever). Goal no 2: How to keep the cells planar in order to be able to loft them later, obtain those pyramidal forms, and assemble easily Have you got any ideas? Or maybe there's a completely different approach to that? Cheers, and thanks in advance…; Added by Benoit Martel at 12:30pm on March 2, 2016