y, he he) on that market segment (trusses and the likes) ... well ... you can't do anything in real-life without code. Too many reasons to list them here (indicative: connectivity Trees, member clash detection, instance definitions, managing solution variations talking to MCAD apps that do the parts in real-life ... blah, blah). If this is just an abstract exercise ... forget all the above.
3. Using a // (to the ground) "inner" surface (the 2 edges, that is) is tricky because without code you can't be sure where the whole procedure failed (a red component means nothing).
4. The weird big "component" provides ways to do things with surfaces (most notably: rebuild) that are not available as native components. Rebuild is critical when dividing surfaces
have fun, best, Lord of Darkness…
s for some solution "as it is" no matter the cost? (that's an extra stupid approach, very old fashioned). Do you use EvoluteTools Pro and/or Kangaroo for "optimization" ?
2. What is the FEA/FIM stuff in use? Do you expect "from/back" interactions? (If this is not doable ... increase this or that etc etc).
3. Do you validate real-life components with FEA/FIM? By what means you design these components? - present and/or future (inside Rhino?). This makes things "interesting" in a variety of ways (we need to extensively talk about that - Skype). The problem is that Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modeling app and thus ... a "certain" bottleneck arrives in no time: In the CATIA world you design ("MANUALLY") a parametric history driven component that "complies" to his parent "directives" (say: the Topology) and/or "imposes" his rules to his parent. This is what we call top<>bottom design approach (would become a standard across the AEC industry pretty soon: in around 123 years give or take some). This is far and beyond from what Rhino can do - but we DO make real-life things don't we?
4. Are all these things under a BIM umbrella ? What BIM? What type of details (blue prints) you deliver? (or you just make the thing?).
5. By what means cost is restricting/encouraging the solution? By what means you get feedback from component(s) cost that is outsourced? (i.e. outside your company). Do you monitor all things via some RDBMS? (that's Data Base).
6. What are the long term plans for dealing with such solutions? Using what apps (even in theory for the moment).…
simple, there are many symetries in 3 main planes. So I used arcs rotated 45° from the main planes and I generate a pentagon which was mirrored and rotated many times.
At the end there are 24 pentagons and 8 hexagons so 32 faces, 54 points/vertex and 84 edges.
It could generate some others tessalation styles
…
ll geometry.
The difference with programs like Inventor is that they are made for production, regardless of the fabrication method. I won't go into detail about that, and instead focus on the modeling process.
In this little model, the starting point actually is a bit obvious, the foundation.
The only contents in the 3dm file are 27 lines. These indicate the location of each footing, and the direction of the tilt of each column. Everything else is defined in GH with the use of numbers as input parameters.
Needless to say, instead of those lines you could obviously generate lines and control the number of columns and panels, hence establish their layout, with any algorithmic or non-algorithmic criteria you please. That marks a major difference between GH and Inventor.
You can generate geometry with Inventor via scripting/customization (beyond iLogic), with transient graphics for visual feedback similar to GH's red-default previews. However Inventor's modeling functions are not set to input and output data trees. I won't go into detail on that, but suffice to say that the data tree associativity of GH was for me the first major difference I noticed. I've used other apps with node diagram interfaces like digital fusion for non-linear video editing since the late 90's, so the canvas did not call my attention when I first started using GH.
Anyways, here's a screen capture of the foundational lines:
In the first group of components, the centerlines of the rear columns are modeled:
And the locations in elevation for connection points are set. Those elevations were just numbers I copied from Excel, but you can obviously control that any way you please. I was just trying to model this quickly.
The same was done for the rear columns:
The above, believe it or not, took me the first 5 hours to get.
Here's a screen capture of what the model and definition looked like after 4 hours, not much:
If you're interested, next post I can get into the sketching part you mentioned, which is a bit cumbersome with GH, but not really.
I wouldn't say that using GH to do this little model was cumbersome, it just needed some thinking at the beginning. You do similar initial thinking when working with a feature-based modeler.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 12:44am on February 24, 2011
思った感じになりません。
balls の代わりにplanarカーブを直接入れてみましたがエラーが出ます。
ファンクションにしてみたところ、forループので作った数値が反映されていません。
ファンクションのインスタンス?を出力していないと思い上記のようにしましたがエラーが出てしまいます。
以上の事から自分の認識が正しいのかよくわからなくなりました・・・
python自体の深いところをわかっているわけではないので余計こんがらがりました。
そこで、for b in ballsはどのような条件または使い方であれば使えるのでしょうか?
そして、上記のように別のオブジェクトに対しての使い方はどのようにすればできるのでしょうか?
2:同じファンクション内のdist = rs.Distance(self.pos,b.pos)についてですが
この文章も for b in balls によってbはBallのインスタンスであると定義?されたためb.posがbの位置であると分かるのでしょうか?
pythonは定義しなくても動いてしまうのでどのような時に使えるのか文章見ただけではよくわかりません・・・
大変細かいことかもしれませんが、よりpythonをしっかりと理解するためにも、どなたかわかる方ご教授いただけると幸いです。…
r this or that etc etc).
3. I would strongly advise to use some decent feature/dimension driven CAD app in order to create families of concrete deck/beam(s) profiles "manually" (the good old way PLUS recording history and using parameters for the steps taken). Find a friend who knows, say, AECOSim and ask for a small demo on that matter (specifically ask what DDD is [Dimension Driven Design]). Then you can have these in Rhino/GH, define some topology, do the "solid" and if 1M of decks/beams are required rather use instance definitions and plane to plane transformations (that's what the Orient component does) instead of creating 1M clone objects.…
discussions during this period.
The major topics discussed for GH2 during this period will be:
Documentation/Help
GHA/Cluster/VB/C# App-Store
Localization (i.e. languages other than English)
Constraint Engine implementation
Improved VB/C#/Python development tools
Multi-threading the solver
Building a Mac version
If you feel something important was left out, please let us know here. Note that incremental improvements and bug-fixes are not worth discussion as we'll try and get around to them no matter what. Topics on this list have to fit the "Are we going to try and do X?" format.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Tirol, Austria…
Added by David Rutten at 4:07am on October 11, 2013
n splitting curves and then join them to create the region; but I'am looking for a more straightforward solutions. 3- I know some plugins like clipper could do this, but I'm looking for more flexible solutions.
4- I tried Brep[] CreatePlanarBreps(IEnumerable<Curve>) in ghpython, but it doesn't work.
…
You can create Design Options using the Iris Layer component!
For each set of geometries that you create, you can assign a layer and define whether it will be visible or not in Virtual Reality on the
Added by IrisVR to IrisVR at 8:34am on January 23, 2017