ncluded 3) using a freaky thing that "makes" Planes in order to do ramps (spot the Vodka option = Mobius + antigraviity OFF).
Don't touch the freaky things: for the moment just go and play with this palatable portion (GH components, nothing to fear he he):
depending on choice in gates: Paranoid (Mobius "shifted in Z")
sane (using corrected Planes):
not so sane:
What we have learned so far? Well ramps (and most of other things) ... it's about Planes (coordinate systems) you know.
Again: this is for fun/demo ONLY. I'll prepare a dedicated def for your case soon.
have fun, be brave
…
he past Architecture was the art of sketching: some "idea" with pencils/crayons + vellum paper (or with some computer) > then "others" trying to make this happen. This in general is known as top-to-bottom approach. Naive and dangerous (for the reputation/reception/acceptance of Architects/Architecture) to the max.
2. These days we work both ways: whilst some work on some "idea" (called it: "assembly") others (in sync mode) resolve the bits and nuts of that "idea" - up to 1:1 level of detail (called it "components"). This is the bottom-to-top approach. Make this your way: NEVER proceed in something whist's not EVERY bit of that something is well addressed (with at least 3-5 ways).
3. The emergence of parametric (GH, Generative Components, Dynamo) in AEC (an approach well known in MCAD word many years ago, mind) made things ... worst: the tremendous topology exploitation capabilities blinded people's mind and they are completely sucked up by the forest forgetting/by passing the critical fact that there's no forest without trees.
4. That's expected: is in the human nature to follow/admire the blink/glam and omit/skip the humble. It's the easy way you know, he he.
5. The tremendous growth of countries the likes of UAE/China/Russia made AEC things ... even worst: lot's of cash available > make us some encomium to Vanity, forget Modesty. You can replace "Vanity" with "New Frontiers" ... if you like fooling yourself.
Some Academics are not capable to understand all that: if they could they would potentially operate in the field (where the pink color is rarely used) and not in fishbowl(s). Some Academics believe that an "idea" is the 99% of the whole whilst actually is less than 1%. But on the other hand anyone can do Architecture (even Architects, he he).
That said (Vanity crisis) you want some other "component" options for this case of yours? (starting with "some" dollars more and ending with the mortgage the house/sell wife+kids option).
take care (and kill them all)…
something (C# or components) that does a planer periodic nurbs - any shape imaginable in fact (shown a humble "figure of 8").
2. Imagine a capability (C# only: sorry) to create a "guide" (indicative/intermediate) surface. Basically: patch the nurbs from step 1 against a variety of user controlled curves/points/cats/dogs/you name it.
3. Imagine doing this U/v quad mesh thingy (we can fill the "gaps" [C# only: sorry] with the base boundary easily - especially when triangulating the mesh - but better work as shown):
4. Imagine calling the cavalry (Kangaroo) and instructing to do ... things on that "normalized" mesh.
5. What things? Well ... like equalize edges, "inflate", planarize the quads (extra WOW stuff that one), pull it against the "guide" surface [from step 2] or some other weird ideas of mine.
this is what V2 does (WIP).
more soon
…
posted rather testifies that. Randomness is the virtue here NOT equality. BTW: forget completely "optimization" of the mount points et all.
2. The thing in pic is airy (quality Numero Uno on that type of stuff, especially for things with no real load bearing capability) meaning minimum profiles ... meaning FORGET wood. Use aluminum tubes (rather cheaper than wood) as follows: screw the Captain Hook "node" in some kind of machined tube end (a humble massif cylinder that is screwed or clued [Araldide 2 part Epoxy] to the tube AND machined with threads for the hook).
NOTE: I could make a simple tube "adjustment" system that could allow you to build that on-the-fly WITHOUT any GH/K or anything: just start connecting variable length tubes ... er ... hmm ... randomly. This is the recommended way to do it anyway: we can't emulate art with software and even if we could: it's the art of pointless.
3. Additionally the whole conceptual aesthetics BEG for some kind of metal instead of wood. The fact that wood is aplenty in Russia doesn't justify killing trees (for any scope), anyway.
4. Using rings to "attach" the hooks ... well that could yield a highly unstable structure for more than obvious reasons. I could provide to you dozens of highly sophisticated bespoke solutions on that matter ... but they are unsuitable for this DIY occasion: I must think on a zero basis on that puzzle - allow me some time to propose the best "adapter" (easy, cheap, stable and allowing some liberties).
5. A Connectivity tree (see for instance Sandbox) can resolve with easy the equal axis worry of yours (thus: FORGET equality, just buy a hack-saw [ aluminum is very easy to "cut", he he]).
All in all: I like that a lot. I'll post soon some examples related with the all overall approach (including the node, he he). You don't need Kangaroo for that (and dare I say no structural analysis IF the structure to be is "similar" in size with the one pictured).
more soon, best, Lord of Darkness…
n requires ASCII format STL files, a Rhino export option.
(4) Compared to the bunny, your mesh was huge so I scaled it down 1/100th, so the same maximum tetrahedron size setting would blow up the output.
(5) I updated the Python to make Voronoi and Tetrahedron meshes output optional and added a file path input.
So I reduced your mesh after saving as an STL, using Autodesk Meshmixer, to half the number of triangles.
Before reducing the triangles I got a very fine tree that took a long time, with some segments so short it was hard to make a mesh pipe without artifacts:
After reducing:
Shortest walk won't yet work with the more open and direct path Voronoi diagram lines, since the target points are not the same surface mesh points and thus I can't specify each path endpoint yet.
The Tetgen internal Python -q quality setting dominates internal tetrahedron size unless you specify a very small maximum tetrahedron size input such as 0.01. With such an overly fine mesh, there were quite a few internal tetrahedra, since the angle quality settings won't let it expand to bigger ones very fast away from the surface.
…
Added by Nik Willmore at 3:16am on February 6, 2016
ges can have much stronger impact on the final design.
The problem is that usually the more "nonlinear" the mapping is the more interesting the result usually are because a definition with a very "linear" mapping doesn't have so much potential for surprise and unforeseen solutions.
It can be a random number as you stated, but also some like for example a slightly different point coordinate leads to different typology in a delaunay triangulation, now the strength of the impact also depends on the total sum of the delaunay points as well on how early the triangulation happens in the definition.
I seen that a shape analysis is a not easy at all not only technical but especially by defining the criteria. Looking forward to see your approach compare genotype and phenotype 'solution' spaces. Maybe an additional approach could be to have something like a gene manager where you can narrow down ranges of certain genes, weight them or freeze them.
to 4) and 5) looking forward to see the history once its ready. I think it could be beneficial to also be able to insert solution "by hand" for further crossbreeding and saving.
What i found myself doing quite often was taking solutions from the biomorpher and then tweaking one or more parameters "by hand" because then you can really see the impact and then you would like to have the possibly to bring that solution back into the biomorpher process.
I will go on testing and get back to you guys in some weeks! I attached you the my definition in case you want to have a look. Its needs kangaroo1, lunchbox, heteroptera and wb. Its more a graphical formal exercise:
best, chris…
n get the correct results with cooling loads:
3. After I update LB+HB, a warning is given for the set EP construction component:
4. so I replaced it with the latest one (Feb 05, 2017):
5. Now the cooling loads is missing from the result for reason unknown ...
May I ask if the missing cooling loads is related to the latest update of LB+HB? What component update is causing this problem?
BTW, I'm using Singapore's epw file, and for a tropical city, there should be no heating energy at all. So, sth clearly is wrong over here ...
Thanks.
…
actually can perform using a dedicated software:
in 3D:
https://www.facebook.com/francescopiasentini/videos/523532707845171/
in 2D:
https://vimeo.com/189618609
The output of Modal Analysis (at a given frequency) is a list of point (x,y,z), each of them has the three coordinates and the maximum displacement in the direction normal to the surface (that's not flat)
Point number x y zmax1 24,007565 337,876028 -0,6545572 -28,0404705 337,947773 0,7760153 57,141457 316,757768 -0,8413914 18,667466 314,814543 -0,235288
My idea is:
-import stl surfaces of the object (violin)
-import Modal Analysis data
-deform stl (or Nurbs) surfaces using something like a customized CageEdit
-animate this deformation from zero to maximum displacement
-give a color to deformation (or first-second derivative of the interpoled deformation curves)
My wish is to have closed surfaces at any steps, and to create "natural" deformation shapes.
I just tried to import MA data. I was trying to create an array of circles with given x,y,z and radius, I could not figure how to separate information of position and radius when importing the file:
file content:
0,1,0; 5;2,1,3; 2;5,2,6; 4;
thanks for yout attention.
Looking forward to hear you soon!
Francesco
…
Il corso ha una durata di 21+3 ore, dove le 3 ore extra rappresentano la prima lezione, già disponibile per coloro che ne faranno richiesta.
Il corso viene fatto in collaborazione con l’Accademia Italiana Inrender
Modalità:
Il corso sarà trasmesso in streaming in diretta nei giorni indicati, ma sarà possibile accedervi anche fuori da determinato orario. La lezione prevede la spiegazione della logica di Grasshopper e esempi pratici di utilizzo. Gli studenti verranno invitati a partecipare ponendo domande e chiedendo chiarimenti su aspetti ritenuti interessanti o non appieno compresi.
Gli esercizi svolgeranno una parte particolarmente rilevante all’interno del percorso di studio: anzichè acquisire solo concetti teorici, gli studenti avranno un approccio più mirato e pratico alla modellazione generativa e parametrica.
Caratteristiche del corso:
- Lezioni in diretta streaming- Riassunto in pdf degli argomenti trattati- Esercizi e correzione esercizi relativi alle tematiche trattate- Contatto diretto con il docente per la durata del corso- Registrazioni e file delle lezioni disponibili sul sito per un anno dal termine del corso.- Certificazione rilascita da un ART (Authorized Rhinoceros Trainer)
Corso Grasshopper online: 21 ore Calendario: ogni martedì e giovedì dalle 18.30 alle 21.30
Grasshopper è un prodotto gratuito sviluppato dalla McNeel per la modellazione di superfici matematiche NURBS attraverso l’uso di relazioni tra algoritmi
Il corso tratterà gli argomenti di base da cui sviluppare un approccio generativo tramite le funzioni dell’applicativo
Per info sul programma e modalità, visita la nostra pagina
http://www.mandarinoblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/venezia.jpg 450w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
http://www.mandarinoblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/ART.jpg 330w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
http://www.mandarinoblu.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/serpentine.jpg 350w" sizes="(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />
Contatti
Contatta il docente e rivolgi a lui tutte le tue domande.…
he "return" is comment out as shown below?
After restarting Rhino and Grasshopper, I opened the outdoors_airflow demo file, and the first step of creating the case file is ok:
Then the blockMesh component gives the following error: seems I have to manually start OF first..
so, as the error message suggested, I open OF by Start_OF.bat:
Then come back to the blockMesh component, now it can be executed while the OF command line window is also openning:
... and the blockMesh finished successfully:
... so I proceeded to run snappyHexMesh, checkMesh and update fvScheme:
... up to the simpleFoam component, I got the error again:
The warning message is:
1. Solution exception: --> OpenFOAM command Failed!#0 Foam::error::printStack(Foam::Ostream&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #1 Foam::sigFpe::sigHandler(int) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #2 ? in "/lib64/libc.so.6" #3 double Foam::sumProd<double>(Foam::UList<double> const&, Foam::UList<double> const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #4 Foam::PCG::solve(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #5 Foam::GAMGSolver::solveCoarsestLevel(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #6 Foam::GAMGSolver::Vcycle(Foam::PtrList<Foam::lduMatrix::smoother> const&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::PtrList<Foam::Field<double> >&, Foam::PtrList<Foam::Field<double> >&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #7 Foam::GAMGSolver::solve(Foam::Field<double>&, Foam::Field<double> const&, unsigned char) const in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libOpenFOAM.so" #8 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solveSegregated(Foam::dictionary const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/lib/libfiniteVolume.so" #9 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solve(Foam::dictionary const&) in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #10 Foam::fvMatrix<double>::solve() in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #11 ? in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam" #12 __libc_start_main in "/lib64/libc.so.6" #13 ? in "/opt/OpenFOAM/OpenFOAM-v1606+/platforms/linux64GccDPInt32Opt/bin/simpleFoam"
... and the command lines in the readMe! output are pretty long and it is saved in the text file attached here.
So, my questions are:
1. why I have to manually start OF first before I can use the blockMesh component? Should butterfly automatically start OF?
2. what might be the cause of the unsuccessful run of simpleFoam in the end?
Hope you can kindly advise! Thank you!
- Ji
…