-life fabrication issues ... then ... well ... that's the reason for the Skype.
2. In general I would say that exploiting parametric "arrangements" (in the broad sense) is less than 5% of the whole ... given the fact that in real-life there's a lot of other constrains. Again using Kim's IKEA note: for instance packaging (at least for the magnitude of IKEA's business) is rather more important than ANY smart of stupid design.
3. Reliable components VS Design/Manufacturing cost IS the ultimate "fitness" challenge: this involves bottom-top design disciplines (not doable with Rhino/GH by any means) and ... well... some top dog feature driven MCAD app. Most makers/designers use the cheapo alternatives (SolidWorks/Creo etc etc) and the results ... well .. you get what you've paid for, he he.
4. Why bottom-top may you ask? (and what means this anyway?) Well ... one "connecting node" that would been made 1Z times at the minimum cost possible is a 100 times more challenging task than designing a shelve system that uses that node. See for instance A LOT of IKEA solutions (i.e. the nuts and bolts of them) that are exceptionally flimsy, very badly designed and ... well ... suitable for 1 week's usage (but there's some others that are less faulty). On the other hand IKEA actually serves the ephemeral ... thus ... this MAY be intentional (recycle > buy > recycle > buy > ...).
I buy therefor I exist.
For instance a certain IKEA mold injected "multi join node" for a given series of shelves ... it would sustain less than 5 minutes "abuse" (in case that someone would attempt to "rearrange" things). Moral: reality and theory ARE not the same thing.
I could continue until the end of Time listing "aspects" of the whole puzzle related with production issues ... but for the moment I would conclude by the following:
GH is a good "general" purpose graphic editor and Rhino IS NOT a feature driven solid modelling app. If you combine these 2 ... you can easily outline what you can and what you can't (or shouldn't) do on that subject.…
glass panel).
2. This actually means that the parts on duty they don't differ that much. Meaning that we can use an "average" size (and "local" topology) acting as the Jack for all trades.
3. Meaning that we can effectively solve the abstract topology with an abstract app the likes of GH and then place in properly defined coordinate systems all the real-life bits and nuts ... closely "emulating" a pro solution (that could "adjust" the parts as well).
4. This means that one particular C# needs more lines of code since as it is it defines cable axis on a per nod to node basis ... but in fact these are defined as the min segment between curves (circles to be exact).
5. Additionally the end part of each strut differs depending on how many pairs of stabilizing cables are used (either 2 or 1). Meaning some lines of code more for defining the proper coordinate systems for the instance definitions.
6. This is the reason that I've postponed mailing to you the 4 horsemen (because PRIOR finishing the whole you MUST define what parts to use: the classic bottom-top design approach).
But in order to receive the Salvation (aka: Apocalypse) you MUST answer correctly to a simple puzzle:
Provided that money is no object, pick your car:
1. Ferrari 245 (Less is more)
2. Lancia Stratos (Lethal).
3. Cobra 427 (Men only)
4. Ford GT40 (Mama mia)
5. Ariel Atom (Mental)
6. Aston Zagato GTB4 (Sweet Jesus)
7. Fulvia HF Fanalone (THE racer)
8. Lambo Miura (Enough said)
9. Lotus Elise (Just add lightness)
10. Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione (In red)…
if you can't resolve the details ... well ... they do that as well. For Europe contact my good friend Peter Stevens. (BirdAir).
In general: PRIOR designing ANYTHING (at all) you must formulate some kind of collaboration with a specialized manufacturer. Problem is that ... er ... if they don't know you they don't give much attention (this is a rather "closed" AEC sector).
On the other hand if your membrane is bespoke designing the components (anchor plates, masts, tensioners etc etc) and/or using bespoke ones available in the market (not many around. mind)... well ... this IS the core of the matter. Rhino is NOT suitable for that kind of stuff by any means.
Kangaroo 1/2 is the way to go when inside GH. Other apps especially the "pro" ones are very expensive. BirdAir has the best software for that matter but is mostly an internal product available as well only for few "strategic" partners as they call Architects who can design that kind of stuff.
Other than that have some fun:
Tensile Membranes test3 - Grasshopper
And this ... well ...is about NOT doing it:
Need help about using Kangaroo for form finding
…
priety software). Think Kangaroo with RON 100 fuel (add some nitrous oxide).
Back to domes.
1. Obviously you know the free WinDome Bono thing...but anyway get it (code included).
2. As I said on another thread (http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/the-necessity-for-a-data-tree-manager) ... the big thing in AEC (because, for instance, nobody does domes for decoration/artistic stuff etc etc) is how to implement already designed things (see images above) within a smart stuff definition (or many).
3. Goes several steps beyond: these "breps" (to speak GH/Rhino language) are in most cases nested and some parts are "locked" for transformations some other not. That's the big thing when trying to outline real-life AEC solutions in the so called Smart applications. I think that this is not doable in Rhino since there's no way to edit (in place) a nested block.
4. Goes even further: for each custom made thing (truss nodes and the likes) ... there's a bill waiting. Meaning that the less customized a solution is (with regard industrial sourced existed parts) the more is possible for the client to sign the dotted line.
Best, Peter…
ple and/or easy.
I use GH/Rhino (really GH almost exclusively) for design. I find the parametric capabilities of GH simply spectacular. The Autocad apps are all quite good (and free) so I would have no problem recommending any of them. Meshmixer is a common starter for people new to 3D printing; it is targeted at more "free form"/artistic designs that is Tinkercad, which is more oriented for geometric/engineering/architectural designs. Sketchup is also a good place to start with 3D design; it used to be owned by Google but is now owned by a 3rd party company.
For slicers I've tried them all and have settled on Craftware. It's free and available at https://www.craftunique.com/craftware. For backup to that (it is still a beta product) I use Simplify3D (very seldom) but it costs $150.
If anyone cares I have uploaded an updated version of the Stepwell GH file; I tweaked it a bit to make it a little simpler and to make the base thicker so it would be more robust when printed. The dimensions of the part are large so it has to be scaled down to fit a particular printer. This is easily done with any slicer. The STL file from Rhino still has to be fixed; as exported it would print with no bottom - and I haven't figured out why that happens.…
Added by Birk Binnard at 12:36pm on February 14, 2016
subsequently able to retain a higher level of flexibility.
In Rhino however a rectangle is defined as only a plane and two numeric intervals (one for x, one for y). The possible solutions to this would be:
Extend the Rhino SDK Rectangle3d type to include constant radius fillet corners. This can be done, but is a lot of work and will break the SDK.
Create a new type in Grasshopper which is smarter than Rectangle3d. This complicates developing for Grasshopper because now you have to keep two different types in mind whereas before only one was needed.
Remove the Fillet Radius input from Rectangle components. I like this solution because it results in cleaner, simpler code, but it does mean people may need to use two components where before one was sufficient.
Make the Rectangle type smart enough so that it can recognise filleted rectangles and undo the filleting. This is something I can do right now for Grasshopper 1.0 and it in all likelihood would not break actual existing files even though it is technically a behavioural change.
I'll try and get (4) done for Rhino 6 SR1, I might decide to do (3) for Grasshopper 2.0. I sincerely doubt that (1) will ever get done and I dislike (2).…
Added by David Rutten at 4:38am on November 6, 2017
installing or running.Here is the direct link to download the PanelingTools installer. Simply double click the downloaded file and follow the prompts to install:https://www.rhino3d.com/download/panelingtools/1/wip/rcImportant Note:You will need the latest Rhino 6 Beta to run the new PanelingTools. Download from here:https://www.rhino3d.com/download/rhino-for-windows/betaIf you own Rhino 5.0 License, then you can access Rhino 6 Beta now. Grasshopper installs and runs as part of Rhino 6 Beta.You can download older versions of PanelingTools and access documentation from one of the following:- PanelingTools Wiki: https://wiki.mcneel.com/labs/panelingtools- PanelingTools at Food4Rhino: http://www.food4rhino.com/app/panelingtools-rhinoA great place to post questions and suggestions is the McNeel Discourse Forum:https://discourse.mcneel.com/For those of you using PanelingTools in Rhino Mac, you can continue to access PT thought the commandline (type pt, and the commands will auto-complete). You can also access PT Grasshopper components by following the instructions here:http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/panelingtools/forum/topics/pt-gh-for-the-rhinowip-for-the-macRelease Notes November 14, 2017:-------------------- PanelingTools is now compiled against the public Rhino 6 SDK. This will help with quick updates and improvements independent of the Rhino release cycle.- Paneling data is compatible between Rhino 6 Beta and earlier Rhino versions.- ptGridExtrude1 allows defining a rotation base point when you set a rotation axis (from point becomes the base).- Fixed the paneling output of partial patterns when the grid does not extend far enough to accommodate a full unit pattern.- ptWeaveGrids has now an option to weave by columns. It used to support weaving by row only.- Writing a reading managed patterns has been re-written.- Fixed a number of various bugs.Enjoy!Rajaa IssaRobert McNeel & Associates…
ject that involves the design of an app that allows people to interact with a 3d model through some sliders.)
Ok, imagine you have a symmetrical shape like the one i drew:
What I intend to do is to have different 3 sliders that allow me to adjust the 3 distances (x, y, z) independently of one another.
-1st question: my idea is to draw the curves in rhino, then use the "divide" and "list item" components to extract the points I need. Is it correct? :D
-2nd question: the "move away from" component can be used in a symmetric way?
(I try to be more specific: with only one slider, can I move both points 5 and 6 simultaneously about the axis i drew?)
-3rd question: is there a way that allows the curves to reshape themselves as I move the slider related to the distance between a couple of points?
I hope I have been clear ;) I would greatly appreciate any help you can give me!
Matteo…