Rhino5 SR9. PT will not load unless you update.2- Download the PT installer (PanelingTools_2014_08_24_00.rhi) from: http://www.rhino3d.com/download/rhino/5.0/PanelingToolsV5/2- Double click the downloaded rhi file and follow the prompts to install.3- Next time you open Rhino and grasshopper, you should see the new version installed and loaded.4- The updated toolbars should be also installed. You might need to load using "ToolbarLayout" Rhino command.Documentation:There are comprehensive manuals available. Please make use of them.1- PT-Rhino: http://wiki.mcneel.com/_media/labs/panelingtools.pdf2- PT-GH: http://
wiki.mcneel.com/_media/labs/panelingtools4grasshopperprimer.pdf
New in this Release:--------------------
PT-Rhino:
1- All 2D and 3D Paneling commands, now pay attention to the attributes of the source module. Morphed geometry is no longer added to a new layer and is placed in the same layer as that of the source module(s).2- ptPanel3DCustomVariable with mean option: added support to use multiple start/end modules.3- ptPanel3DCustomVariable command with mean option: added support to use points as part of pattern.
4- Fixed history bugs to custom2d and custom3d variable commands.5- ptOffsetBorder: added bitmap and draft angle options.6- Added history support to ptGridSurface* commands.7- ptPlanarLips command is discontinued and is now replaced with the new ptTabs. The new command has "Distance" and "Recess" options to create tabs with a miter. It works with planar surfaces and polysurfaces.8- ptUnrollFaces: Many improvements and new options.9- Many other minor bug and crash fixes.PT-GH:1- Added anew component to morph variable 3D components using mean or tween method between matching curves, meshes or surfaces.2- Added the new ptOffsetGrid component of a grid.3- Updated the ptMorph2dVariable component to accept a tree structure.4- Fixed a few miscellaneous UI bugs and crashes.Feedback:As always, feedback is ve
ry much appreciated. Please post questions and reports to the following:1- Rhino discourse forum (http://discourse.mcneel.com/)2- PT forums (PT-Rhino: http://v5.rhino3d.com/group/panelingtools) and (PT-GH: http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/panelingtools).3- Email tech (tech@mcneel.com) or reach me directly (rajaa@mcneel.com).Enjoy!Rajaa IssaRobert McNeel & Associates…
o sensor Shield V5.0 - 2 standard servos (plugged into pins 9 and 10 in the sensor shield) - 7.5V wall power supply - USB cable to computer
I'm running Rhino SR 8 on a 32 bit Windows Vista machine I have Version 0.9.0014 of grasshopper (the latest) and Firefly_Build_1.0067 I have flashed my Arduino board with the latest firefly firmata (updated September 10th, 2012)
I have checked that I am using the "MEGA write" box I have got the right bits going to the right pins and I have checked that they all have "servo" ticked instead of "digital" or "pwm"
My servos and board work perfectly well with the normal Arduino software, but just not any longer with firefly since my computer was switched off.
The port shows correctly as COM 4 and opens fine.
When I move the slider to control the servos, the TX light is on and the RX light flashes, but no servos move... (everything works with the sweep example in arduino though, so I have eliminated power and wiring issues)...
Any ideas what might be the problem?
I've tried re-installing, switching off and on many times, changing cables, trying a different board (also doesn't work any more with the duemilanove), trying all pins on the shield, trying one servo without the shield, trying one servo with the shield, lots of googling, lots of searching forums, unblocking the firefly installation files in explorer, lots of things... I'm all out of ideas... And very confused as it was working just a few days ago... Am I just missing something really obvious or could there be an issue with the software at my end?…
o it would cause troubles with unfolding and fabricating... that's why I used Extrude point component- it will give you similar result, but all surfaces are planar.. you can control extrusion direction with a tip point in rhino...
2)I changed tagging so every tube has 8 points form list A and 8 points from list B... first number of tag is a number of point within one tube... last number of the tag is order of tubes (I draw a little picture in GH, hope you'll understand)...I think original way of tagging wasn't really usefull.. but you can change tagging by yourself...
3) the definition is really messy, sorry about that, but it's just quite complicated task...
4)if you find some incorrect order of tagging, use the slider that controls Shift List component ... it will shift tagging..
5) if you won't be using this definition or find some better way, pleeeease don't tell me - I'll jump out the window :D ... it took me whole day to make it work :D
6)I can't guarantee you anything- I hope it works, but if not - at least I tried... so check everything (especially order of tags and points) twice before you fabricate it.. or print few tubes and make them paper first..
7)there is a part of original definition, that is not useful anymore.. I left it there, but you can delete it (I called it "UNUSED PARTS OF ORIGINAL FILE")
..good luck
Dimitri…
RESENTERS PETER ARBOUR seele KEITH BOSWELL Skidmore Owings & Merrill MARK E. DANNETTEL Thornton Thomasetti LISA IWAMOTO IwamotoScott JASON KELLY JOHNSONFuture Cities Lab/California College of the Arts HAO KO Gensler BILL KREYSLER Kreysler & Associates ANDREW KUDLESS Matsys/California College of the Arts CHRIS LASCH Aranda\Lasch ARNOLD LEE HOK MIC PATTERSON Enclos, Corp. M. MIN RA Front GEOFF ROSSI Element DENNIS SHELDEN Gehry Technologies ANN SMITH Cambridge Architectural MARCELLO SPINAP-A-T-T-E-R-N-S SANJEEV TANKHA Buro Happold BEN TRANEL Gensler PHIL WILLIAMS Webcor Builders & Consulting Group
DIGITAL FABRICATION WORKSHOPS
8 LU/HSW or 8 LU credits (depending upon workshop choice)
Friday, July 27th 2012 9:00 AM – 6:00 PMCalifornia College of the Arts San Francisco, California
PARAMETRIC ENVELOPES WITH GRASSHOPPERANDREW KUDLESS Matsys Design/California College of the Arts
COMPOSITE FACADES IN ARCHITECTUREBILL KREYSLER & JOSHUA ZABEL Kreysler & Associates
RESPONSIVE BUILDING FACADESJASON KELLY JOHNSON Future Cities Lab/California College of the Arts
SCRIPTED FACADESCHRIS LASCH Aranda/Lasch
PARAMETRIC FACADE TECTONICSKEVIN MCCLELLAN & ANDREW VRANA Digital Fabrication Alliance
BIM MODELING WITH REVIT/INTRO TO VASARIGERMAN APARICIO California College of the Arts & Autodesk Fellow
Facade technologies are developing at a more dynamic rate than almost any other issue related to construction today with an impact on performance, sustainability, materials, fabrication, design, delivery and much more. What was once thought impossible is now an everyday reality, and the future promises accelerating change.
Presented by Enclos and The Architect’s Newspaper, COLLABORATION will bring together in a two-day event, the industry, the profession, and the academy to explore the evolution and the issues surrounding today’s high tech building envelope through case studies and lectures presented by foremost
practitioners, as well as panel discussions, and workshops conducted by leaders in the AEC profession.
Aimed at architects, building owners and developers, general contractors, engineers, fabricators, material suppliers, educators, and students, the event’s panels and sessions address the transformative opportunities created by new technologies and resources. From using BIM for communicating effectively with fabricators, to energy modeling, to retrofitting practices and the latest design tools, the COLLABORATION conference offers an unprecedented opportunity to survey the possibilities of designing in the digital age.
Who Should Attend
Architects, designers, engineers, building owners, developers, and facade consultants interested in gaining increased understanding of cutting-edge building envelope technologies.…
ns about them.
It's a direction for Kangaroo I very much intend to continue developing - and I am still getting to grips with the possibilities and experimenting with how different optimization and fairing forces work in combination with one another, so I would value your input and experience.
For those interested in some background reading material -
[1] http://www.cs.caltech.edu/~mmeyer/Research/FairMesh/implicitFairing.pdf
[2] http://mesh.brown.edu/taubin/pdfs/taubin-eg00star.pdf
[3] http://www.pmp-book.org/download/slides/Smoothing.pdf
[4] http://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs468-05-fall/slides/daniel_willmore_flow_fall_05.pdf
[5] http://www.evolute.at/technology/scientific-publications.html
[6] http://www.math.tu-berlin.de/~bobenko/recentpapers.html
[7] http://spacesymmetrystructure.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/pseudo-physical-materials/
[8] http://www.evolute.at/technology/scientific-publications/34.html
[9] http://www.evolute.at/software/forum/topic.html?id=18
At the moment the Laplacian smoothing is uniformly weighted, which tends to even out the edge lengths as well as smoothing the form, which is sometimes desirable, and sometimes not. It also tends to significantly shrink meshes when the edges are not fixed.
I plan to try some of the other weighting possibilities, such as Fujiwara or cotangent weighting (see [1] and [3]), as well as other fairing approaches, such as Taubin smoothing [2], Willmore flow[4], and so on. This also has applications in the simulation of bending of thin shells.
Planar quad panels are often desirable, but I'm finding that planarization forces alone are sometimes unstable, or cause undesirable crumpling, so need to be combined with some sort of fairing/smoothing, but the different types have quite different effects, and the balance is sometimes tricky.
There's also the whole issue of meshes which are circular (I posted a demo of circularization on the examples page), or conical (this one still isn't working quite right yet), and their relationship with principal curvature grids and placement of irregular vertices, all of which is rather different when the whole form is up for change, rather than having a fixed target surface [7].
I'm also trying to get to grips with ways of making surfaces of planar hexagons, which need to become concave in regions of negative Gaussian curvature (see this discussion)
and I hope to release soon a component for calculating CP meshes, as described in [8], which I think could have many exciting construction implications.
While there are a number of well developed smoothing algorithms, their main area of application so far seems to be in processing and improving 3D scan data, so using them in design in this way is somewhat new territory. There can be structural, fabrication or performance reasons for certain types of smoothness, but of course the aesthetic reasons are also often important, and I think there are some interesting discussions to be had here about the aesthetics of smoothness.
Anyway, that's enough rambling from me, hopefully something there triggers some discussion - I'm really keen to hear about how all of you envision these tools might be used and developed.
…
d de la Paz 2719 3A - Belgrano.
1 PC por alumno, Aire Acondicionado, Cañon Proyector.
Aranceles
Estudiantes 1 pago de $850 o 2 pagos de $480.-
No Estudiantes 1 pago de $1000+IVA o 2 pagos de $600+IVA.-
Para reservar lugar comunicarse al 4547-3458 o a facundo@rhinoceros.com.ar
Vacantes limitadas.…
rom a few pieces until all of the pieces are in place. You could also, theoretically, modify the form of the base, high, etc.
To do this I started making three pieces (all triangular) of different sizes... and then I stablished that there is going to be a bigger concentration of bigger pieces on the first third of the building, a bigger concentration of medium pieces on the second third and a bigger concentration of small pieces on the last third. I did this by rotating the pieces a number of times accordingly to a percentage.. the funny thing is that it works most of the times, but it doesn't work if the base of the building has 3, 8, 12, 18 or 20 sides (20 being the higher number on the number slider).. maybe there is a way to solve this with lists that I am not using????
My second problem is that I want to rotate each floor of the building separetly using a range... the thing is, I cannot make it work, because it rotates each triangle and not the whole floor... maybe there is a way of making groups or changing the list definition, but I'm not getting there.... I tried working with planes, but it is even more difficult to make the whole thing work...
I'm attaching the grasshopper documment and a couple of pictures so you can get my idea....…
basis FE model to get some stresses to evaluate and then I remap these stresses into a thickness within a certain domain. These values are then used as input to a new FE model.
I look at a cantilever beam (8 x 3 m) which has uniformly distributed loads on top and bottom and all DOF's are fixed in the end (left side).
I get the exact opposite result as I would expect. See the result below.
I've tried to switch the domain input of the thickness which kind of gives a result more likely to what I would expect but still does some weird thing at the end of the cantilever beam. Also I don't really see the logic in doing that.
I've also tried the region boundary support instead but with no luck.
Can anyone see what I'm doing wrong?
Thank you very much!…
control point edit from a sphere.
Since it is the first time I try Exoskeleton, I checked the lists of input geometry in the exemple and got the same in my definition, but the component turned red, giving this error message:
1. Solution exception:Index was outside the bounds of the array.
For the Radius at Start and End values, I tried using the same principle applied inside the Exo-vase exemple, which links the radius to the Z values, remapping them from .3 to 8.
Is there the problem or elsewhere?
Could someone give me a hint about what I am missing ? Many thanks!!!
Below a screenshot., and I attach the definition.
…
ow the steps of the successful run when step 1.2 is bypassed (note that the and OpenFOAM session is open in the background while running the Butterfly demo file):
1. create wind tunnel, and use different parameters of (4,4) for _globalRefLevel_ as suggested by Theodoro in this post
2. run blockMesh:
3. run snappyHexMesh:
4. run checkMesh:
5. connect the case from checkMesh to simpleFOAM and run the simulation:
6. the simulation converged at 1865 iteration, but the results visualization part has some problem:
7. so I revised this part according to suggestions from Hagit:
8. and the results can be visualized for P and U values:
The GH file used for the successful run shown above is attached here.
Now, the following is the error I got when the case from the update fvScheme component is used for simpleFOAM simulation:
the warning message on the simpleFOAM component 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"
The error message from the readMe! output node is attached below as a text file.
Hope you can kindly advise what the important steps or parameters I might have missed here. I assume it might be related to OpenFOAM rather than with the Butterfly workflow...
Thank you very much!
- Ji
…