: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)
Hi Clemens I've analysed a plate structure using Karamba and wanted to do a convergence analysis on results computed as a function of the number of elements.
Now, when strictly looking at the result magnitudes of internal energy (IE) and maximum displacement (w_max), it's acceptable, that their relative deviations are very small. But I cannot explain the tendencies of their graphs. From what I know, FEM should always compute underestimated results when compared to analytical solutions. So I don't understand why both the IE and w_max seem to be decreasing for an increasing number of elements.
But my main concern is the behaviour of the peak moment, it seems to be simply hill climbing untill suddenly a singularity kicks in. I initially wanted to use the peak moment as a fitness value for optimisation, but with this behaviour, I don't think that would make sense. I've attached my GH file as well.
It would be much appreciated if you could enlighten me on these subjects. Cheers Daniel Andersen
2)
Hi Daniel,
I could not run your definition because I have not all the plug-ins installed that you use.
You are basically right that the displacement should increase with a finer mesh. However the result of the shell analysis also depends on the shape of the triangles (well formed vs. very distorted). In order to test this, I think it would be interesting to use a very simple example (e.g. rectangular plate with one column) where you can easily control mesh generation. Would you like to start a discussion on this in the karamba group at http://www.grasshopper3d.com/group/karamba?
It is not a good idea to use the bending moment at a singularity for optimization because the result will be heavily mesh dependent. Also real columns do have a certain diameter and modeling them as point supports introduces an error.
Best,
Clemens
3)
oh, and by the way!
Here's some relevant literature on handling peak moments: https://books.google.dk/books?id=-5TvNxnVMmgC&pg=PA219&lpg=PA219&dq=blaauwendraad+plates+and+fem&source=bl&ots=SdDcwnrSA1&sig=6HulPmKNIhqKx4_rGxitteMC4CU&hl=da&sa=X&ved=0CDEQ6AEwA2oVChMIg66k0LPaxgIVgY1yCh1KPAeY#v=onepage&q=chapter%2014&f=false (Blaauwendraad, J., 2010. Plates and FEM : Surprises and Pitfalls, see Chapter 14) It would be great if a feature dealing with peak moments could be incorporated in Karamba. In my work, I ended up exporting my models to Robot in order to verify the moment values. Best, Daniel
4)
Hi Daniel,
thank you for your reply and the link to Blaauwendraads excellent book!
At some point I hope to include material nonlinearity in Karamba which will help in dealing with stress singularities.
If you want you could open a discussion with a title like 'moment peaks in shells at point-supports'. Then we could copy and paste the text of our conversation into it.
Best,
Clemens
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------…
but rather than keep everyone waiting, I've decided to share some as they become ready.
This also has the advantage that questions about components can be more easily grouped under the relevant post - so please do add any questions / comments / bugs / suggestions about these examples below.
So today I am posting some examples of the mesh utilities that come with the new release.
While these are not directly physics based, many of the forces and types of relaxation in Kangaroo are designed to work with meshes, and in the process of development I've ended up adding a number of simple utilities to make working with them a little easier.
I recommend also installing Weaverbird which has many more subdivision functions and other useful tools for working with meshes in Grasshopper. Also Plankton, Turtle, MeshEdit and Starling extend these possibilities still further.
Diagonalize
This component replaces every edge of a mesh with a new face. The new faces will always be quads, except for along the boundaries, where they will be triangles. It can be used to easily create diagrids. The input mesh can contain any mix of triangles and quads.
When treating the edges of a quad mesh as springs, diagonalizing it will often significantly change its physical behaviour. If you are trying to planarize a quad mesh, diagonalizing may sometimes allow you to stay closer to a target shape if it matches the curvature directions better.
diagonalize.gh
Checkerboard
This component assigns the faces of a mesh into a checkerboard pattern. The output is a list of 1s and 0s (which could represent black/white or true/false) which can be used to dispatch the faces into 2 lists, where no pair of adjacent faces have the same colour.
One nice application I found for this is applying alternating clockwise and counter-clockwise rotations as shown below. Also, on occasion you may want to planarize a quad mesh, but have some constraints on the shape and grid that prevent this, and triangulating only alternating quads to give a hybrid quad/tri mesh can sometimes be a good compromise, allowing a bit more freedom.
Note - Not all meshes can be assigned a checkerboard pattern!
As a simple example, take a mesh with 3 quads around one vertex - If we assign one black face, then both the neighbouring faces should be white, but then we have 2 white faces adjacent to one another, which violates the checkerboard condition.
Generally, we can say that if a mesh has any internal vertex with an odd number of faces around it, then we cannot apply a consistent checkerboard pattern to it (although not having any odd valence vertices is not in itself an absolute guarantee that a mesh is 'checkerboardable').
checkerboard.gh
WarpWeft
This sorts the edges of a quad mesh into 2 lists of line segments, which are like the warp and weft directions of a fabric. They can also be seen as a sort of mesh equivalent to the u and v isocurves on a NURBS surface.
This can be useful if you want to control the shape of a tension structure, because it allows you to assign different stiffnesses in the 2 directions.
As with the checkerboard component, not all meshes can be consistently assigned warp/weft directions. It follows a similar rule - all internal vertices should have an even number of adjacent faces. With a bit of care, it is usually possible to model the initial mesh in such a way as to allow this.
This component also has an output telling us whether or not each line is on a boundary of the mesh, as we will often want to treat these differently.
Same mesh relaxed with different warp/weft stiffness:
warpweft.gh
MeshCorners
This one is hopefully fairly self explanatory. In many simulations we want to anchor the corner points of a mesh. This saves us having to pick them manually in Rhino.
It works on quad meshes, and looks around the boundary vertices for any which do not have exactly 3 connected edges.
corners.gh
That's all for now. Coming soon - a "mesh tools 2" post explaining more of the components.…
But not just any gum tree. The angophora, no less:
Why? Because I like nature, that's why. Every time I see new designs –especially architectural designs– it worries me that the natural environment is being taken over. Not just that, but even the new materials used in all product designs has to come from nature as well [read: mines].
So. People are forgetting that we still need trees and I believe that if someone sees a beautiful [read: established] tree in their architectural plans, they are going to be much more likely to build around it and not cut it down. That alone would no doubt increase the value of the house.
My thinking is that current tree models suck. They look unnatural and I think I know why. They're not random or organic enough. They're not detailed enough. That's basically my 'rationale' for this project. Just look at how different all of these tree trunks are!
So I am not being paid for this project. It's a personal project of mine. I'm just worried about the trunk shape for now — I'll worry about all the leaves... when I get to that.
I am a grasshopper beginner. Please keep that in mind. I am also fairly hopeless at traditional programming, but I find the visual approach of grasshopper much easier to grasp. So unfortunately I have gotten stuck and need some help, even just a clue, as to how to proceed.
That said, here is my current progress:
About a year ago, I started modelling with straight trunks using pipe sections, to see if I could get a very basic "tree" shape. And to see if I could join the segments together. Yes it works but it looks hopeless as you can imagine. Then I stopped for a long while. Now I'm back at it, hoping to improve a lot more.
I have already made one basic vertical nurbs curve with tangents at either end as the main "trunk".
I tried creating two ellipses at each end of the main trunk/curve and lofting between them but it omitted the main curve/rail. So it ended up being an elliptical trunk with straight sides which of course still didn't look right.
Then I divided the first main curve up into a number of segments. I think that is a better approach.
I have taken the parameters of the curve at each segment (probably the tangent, but I am unsure what the exact parameter is) and used that to form a basic angled plane at each segment/division.
I have been able to draw ellipses at each segment and rotate them onto the plane.
I was going to loft it together later on. A Curved loft with elliptical cross-sections looks much better than straight a pipe does, but still looks too unnatural.
I quickly realised that tree trunks are not elliptical, but rather, shaped more like 'kidneys'.
The next step was to create >3 points on each of those planes (spaced fairly evenly around the ellipse so as not to create a really funky/unwanted shape).
Maybe it would be better to model with a triangle or other polygon instead of an ellipse. I haven't got that far yet... because here is where I am getting stuck.
I managed to find a way of getting three roughly 'triangular' points along each that ellipse.
I also managed to create three nurbs cuves in the Z direction which intersected those three points, a bit like three seams down the side of the tree trunk, but couldn't figure out how to loft it all together.
I think it was the wrong approach anyway... I'd rather try to create a bunch of nurbs curves at each of the XY planes so as to get more control of the shape.
What I am trying to do now is create three roughly triangular-spaced points on a basic ellipse through which I can then draw a simple nurbs curve (think like a cross section of the trunk).
I would then like to add some XY-only randomness to the positions of those points. Not Z randomness, otherwise the trunk is going to get messed/kinked up. That's probably very important.
Then I would like to loft those nurbs curvs at each XY plane together forming the basic tree trunk, which also tapers based on some other variable (a non-linear factor, not simply distance from ground plane, perhaps something else?).
I have attached the GH file.
I am also open to suggestions if you have a better way of solving a problem. I would like to retain control over a lot of factor such as number of branches, spacing, average branch length, etc. My main contrsaints are that the entire thing has to be somewhat random and non-linear.
…
e 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.
I get that. That’s why that 3D shape I’m trying to apply the voronoi to was done in NX. I do wonder where the GUI metaphor GH uses comes from. It reminds me of LabVIEW.
"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.
It’s not the primary components that catalyzed this thought but rather the secondary components. I was toying with a component today (twist from jackalope) that made use of three toggle components. The things they controlled are checkboxes in other apps.
Take a look at this jpg. Ignore differences; I did 'em quickly. GH required 19 components to do what SW did with 4 commands. Note the difference in screen real estate.
As an aside, I really hate SolidWorks (SW). But going forward, I’ll use it as an example because it’s what most people are familiar with.
"[...] 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.
I agree, and disagree. I believe parametric applies equally to GH AND SW, NX, and so forth, while algorithmic is unique to GH (and GC and Dynamo I think). Thus I understand why you prefer the term. I too tend to not like referring to GH as a parametric modeler for the same reason.
But I think it oversimplifies it to say parametric modelers move the clicks. SW tracks clicks the same way GH does; GH holds that information in geometry components while SW holds it in a feature in the feature tree. In both GH and SW edits to the base geometry will drive a recalculation, but more commonly, it’s an edit to input data, beit equations or just plain numbers, that drive a recalculation.
I understand the difference in these programs. What brought me to GH is that it can create a visual dialog that standard modelers can’t. But as I've grown more comfortable with it I’ve come to realize that the GUI of GH and the GUI of other parametric modelers, while looking completely different, are surprisingly interchangeable. Do not misconstrue that I’m suggesting that GH should replace it’s GUI with SW’s. I’m not. I refrain from suggesting anything specific. I only suggest that you allow yourself to think radically.
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'.
Given a choice, I'd pick kick-ass algorithmic modeller with no parametrics tacked on.
2. 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.
I'll admit, this is a bit tough to explain. As I've re-read my own comment, I think it was partly a precursor to the context sensitivity point and touched upon other stated points.
This now touches upon my own ignorance about GH’s target market. Are you moving toward a highly specialized tool for programmers and/or mathematicians, or is the intent to create a tool that most designers can master? If it’s the former, rock on. You’re doing great. If it’s the latter, I’m one of the more technically sophisticated designers I know and I’m lost most of the time when using GH.
GH allows the same freedom as a command line editor. You can do whatever you like, and it’ll work or not. And you won’t know why it works or doesn't until you start becoming a bit of an expert and can actually decipher the gibberish in a panel component. I often feel GH has the ease of use of DOS with a badass video card in front.
Please indulge my bit of storytelling. Early 3D modelers, CATIA, Unigraphics, and Pro-Engineer, were unbelievably difficult to use. Yet no one ever complained. The pain of entry was immense. But once you made it past the pain threshold, the salary you could command was very well worth it. And the fewer the people who knew how to use it, the more money you could demand. So in a sense, their lack of usability was a desirable feature among those who’d figured it out.
Then SolidWorks came along. It could only do a fraction of what the others did, but it was a fraction of the cost, it did most of what you needed, and anyone could figure it out. There was even a manual on how to use it. (Craziness!) Within a few short years, the big three all had to change their names (V5, NX, and Wildfire (now Creo)) and change the way they do things. All are now significantly easier to use.
I can tell that the amount of development time that’s gone into GH is immense and I believe the functionality is genius. I also believe it’s ease of use could be greatly improved.
Having re-read my original comments, I think it sounded a bit snotty. For that I apologize.
3. 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 [...] 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.
You bring up both interesting points and limits to my understanding of coding. I’ve reached the point in my learning of GH where I’m just getting into figuring out the sets tab (and so far I’m not doing too well). I often find myself wondering “Is all of this manual conditioning of the data really necessary? Doesn’t most software perform this kind of stuff invisibly?” I’d love to be right and see it go away, but I could easily be wrong. I’ve been wrong before.
5. 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.
I kinda like this. It’s a continuation of what you’re currently doing with things like the panel component.
"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.
6. 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.
You work for McNeel yet you seem to speak of them as a separate entity. Is this to say that there are technical reasons GH can only access things through the Rhino SDK? I’d think you would have complete access to all Rhino API’s. I hope it’s not a fiefdom issue, but it happens.
7. 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.
It begs the question that I have to ask. When is GH1.0 scheduled to launch? And if you need another person to proofread the current draft of new primer.
patrick@girgen.com
I can’t believe wikipedia has an entry for feature creep. And I can’t believe you included it. It made me giggle. Thanks.
8. 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.
I believe it’s been helpful for me to have figured this out. I recently completed a GH course at a local Community College and have done a bunch of online tutorials. The first real project I decided to tackle has turned out to be one of the more difficult things to try. It’s the source of the questions I posted. (Thanks for pointing out that they were posted in the wrong spot. I re-posted to the discussions board.)
I just can't seem to figure out how to turn the voronoi into legitimate geometry. I've seen this exact question posted a few times, but it’s never been successfully answered. What I'm showing here is far more angular than I’m hoping for. The mesh is too fine for weaverbird to have much of an effect. And I haven't cracked re-meshing. Btw, in product design, meshes are to be avoided like the plague. Embracing them remains difficult.
As for offsetsurf, in Rhino, if you do an offsetsurf to a solid body, it executes it on all sides creating another neatly trimmed body thats either larger or smaller than the original. This is how every other app I know of works. GH’s offsetsurf creates a bunch of unjoined faces spaced away from the original brep. A common technique for 3D voronois (Yes, I hit the voronoi overuse easter egg) is to find the center of each cell and scale them by this center. If you think about it, this creates a different distance from the face of the scaled cell to the face of the original cell for every face. As I've mentioned, this project is giving me serious headaches.
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
Thank you for taking the time to reply David. Often we feel that posting such things is send it into the empty ether. I’m very glad that this was not the case.
And thank you for all of the work you've put into GH. If you found any of my input overly harsh or ill-mannered, I apologise. It was not my intent. I'm generally not the ranting sort. If I hadn't intended to provide possibly useful input, I wouldn't have written.
Cheers
Patrick Girgen
Ps. Any pointers on how to get a bit further on the above project would be greatly appreciated.
…
peuvent se diviser une surface avec ne importe quel motif imaginable. 3. Ici, je fournir un moyen de le faire via Lunchbox ... cela fonctionne mais il est fixe et donc nous avons besoin de jouer avec des arbres de données afin de créer le motif approprié par cas. 4. L'autre composante est un joint C # qui fait beaucoup de choses autres que de diviser ne importe quelle collection de points avec de nombreux modèles (voir le modèle ANDRE que je ai fait pour vous). 5. Vous devez décomposer une polysurface en morceaux afin de travailler sur les subdivisions. 6. Je donne une autre définition ainsi que pourrait agir comme un tutoriel sur la façon de traiter des ensembles de points via des composants de GH standards et des méthodes classiques.
Avertissez si tous ceux-ci apparaissent floue pour vous: Si oui, je pourrais écrire une définition utilisant des composants de GH classiques - mais vous perdrez les variations de motifs de division.
mieux, Peter
…
ing the maps to the broader community.
At the moment, there are just a few known issues left that I have to fix for complex geometric cases but they should run smoothly for most energy models that you generate with Honeybee. Within the next month, I will be clearing up these last issues and, by the end of the month, there will be an updated youtube tutorial playlist on the comfort tools and how to use them.
In the meantime, there's an updated example file (http://hydrashare.github.io/hydra/viewer?owner=chriswmackey&fork=hydra_2&id=Indoor_Microclimate_Map) and I wanted to get you all excited with some images and animations coming out of the design part of my thesis. I also wanted to post some documentation of all of the previous research that has made these climate maps possible and give out some much deserved thanks. To begin, this image gives you a sense of how the thermal maps are made by integrating several streams of data for EnergyPlus:
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz2PwDvkjovJaTMtWDRHMExvLUk/view?usp=sharing)
To get you excited, this youtube playlist has a whole bunch of time-lapse thermal animations that a lot of you should enjoy:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLruLh1AdY-Sj3ehUTSfKa1IHPSiuJU52A
To give a brief summary of what you are looking at in the playlist, there are two proposed designs for completely passive co-habitation spaces in New York and Los Angeles.
These diagrams explain the Los Angeles design:
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz2PwDvkjovJM0JkM0tLZ1kxUmc/view?usp=sharing)
And this video gives you and idea of how it thermally performs:
These diagrams explain the New York design:
(https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bz2PwDvkjovJS1BZVVZiTWF4MXM/view?usp=sharing)
And this video shows you the thermal performance:
Now to credit all of the awesome people that have made the creation of these thermal maps possible:
1) As any HB user knows, the open source engines and libraries under the hood of HB are EnergyPlus and OpenStudio and the incredible thermal richness of these maps would not have been possible without these DoE teams creating such a robust modeler so a big credit is definitely due to them.
2) Many of the initial ideas for these thermal maps come from an MIT Masters thesis that was completed a few years ago by Amanda Webb called "cMap". Even though these cMaps were only taking into account surface temperature from E+, it was the viewing of her radiant temperature maps that initially touched-off the series of events that led to my thesis so a great credit is due to her. You can find her thesis here (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/72870).
3) Since the thesis of A. Webb, there were two key developments that made the high resolution of the current maps believable as a good approximation of the actual thermal environment of a building. The first is a PhD thesis by Alejandra Menchaca (also conducted here at MIT) that developed a computationally fast way of estimating sub-zone air temperature stratification. The method, which works simply by weighing the heat gain in a room against the incoming airflow was validated by many CFD simulations over the course of Alejandra's thesis. You can find here final thesis document here (http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/74907).
4) The other main development since the A. Webb thesis that made the radiant map much more accurate is a fast means of estimating the radiant temperature increase felt by an occupant sitting in the sun. This method was developed by some awesome scientists at the UC Berkeley Center for the Built Environment (CBE) Including Tyler Hoyt, who has been particularly helpful to me by supporting the CBE's Github page. The original paper on this fast means of estimating the solar temperature delta can be found here (http://escholarship.org/uc/item/89m1h2dg) although they should have an official publication in a journal soon.
5) The ASHRAE comfort models under the hood of LB+HB all are derived from the javascript of the CBE comfort tool (http://smap.cbe.berkeley.edu/comforttool). A huge chunk of credit definitely goes to this group and I encourage any other researchers who are getting deep into comfort to check the code resources on their github page (https://github.com/CenterForTheBuiltEnvironment/comfort_tool).
6) And, last but not least, a huge share of credit is due to Mostapha and all members of the LB+HB community. It is because of resources and help that Mostapha initially gave me that I learned how to code in the first place and the knowledge of a community that would use the things that I developed was, by fa,r the biggest motivation throughout this thesis and all of my LB efforts.
Thank you all and stay awesome,
-Chris…
ración de 150 horas divididas en cuatro módulos, arrancando el 22 de Marzo del 2011 y terminando la segunda semana de Junio con sesiones los Martes y Jueves de 18:00 a 22:00hrs y algunos Sábados de 10:00 a 14:00hrs.
El tema central del diplomado es el uso integral de la herramienta digital en el proceso de diseño a partir de la base teórica del fenómeno de la emergencia (entendida como la obtención de resultados complejos a partir de la interacción de elementos simples con reglas de bajo nivel de sofisticación).
El desarrollo del programa se concentra en la aplicación práctica de las reflexiones teóricas generadas mediante el uso de herramientas digitales generativas, principalmente Grasshopper (plug-in de modelado parametrico para Rhinoceros).
Contaremos con la presencia de dos colaboradores internacionales: EL primero será un miembro de LaN (Live Architecture Network) que impartirá un curso sobre programación avanzada en Grasshopper enfocandolo a la realización de un objeto construido, haciendo énfasis en la transición entre lo virtual, lo análogo y lo físico. El segundo es Jalal el Ali, maestro en arquitectura por la Architectural Association, líder de la Unidad de Geometría Generativa de Buro Happold y actual líder de proyecto en Zaha Hadid Architects, quien dará un curso intensivo enfocado al uso de la herramienta digital y la producción digital, enseñando procesos que ha aplicado en la empresa donde trabaja. Jalal pronunciará también una conferencia magistral.
Es un programa promueve el uso de nuevas tecnologías y la integración de procesos de producción desde la concepción del diseño, aplicando los conocimientos teóricos en un objeto físico usando el laboratorio de fabricación de la Universidad Iberoamericana.
…
ively and creatively solve today’s product development challenges.
Our Rhino3D Foundations for Industrial Design class provides an in-depth look at 2D and 3D tools and methods with Rhino3D, a NURBs surface modeling software. In this class, we will systematically work through Rhino3D’s core features, using them to model the various components of a consumer product. Over the course of 3 days, we’ll cover some foundational topics, including Rhino interface and navigation, Rhino3D object types and properties, creating and editing 2D and 3D geometry, procedural modeling, automation, transforming geometry, Rhino modeling best practices, freeform vs. precision modeling, and exporting geometry.
You’ll take away the following:
Navigate the Rhino modeling environment
Create, edit, and modify curves, surfaces, and solids
Precision model using coordinate input and object snaps
Use transformation and universal deformation tools
Apply best practices for layer management and model annotation
Download the course one-pager. Need more information? Connect with us.
This class is ideal for:
Industrial designers who are new to Rhino3D and want to learn its concepts and technical features in an instructor-led environment.
For groups of 10 or more, contact Mode Lab at hello@modelab.is
Interested in additional training options?
https://www.modelab.is/upcoming-computational-design-events…
e think. Also, its easier to catch an error because the malicious component simply turns red/orange (in most cases). However, if you are adept at scripting, you are probably very used to recursive looping & conditional evaluation which you miss majorly in GH (it is possible in very limited ways through using series components or comparer components). So an adept scriptor may soon end up switching back to Rhinoscript unless they find the shift from VBscript to VB.net really fast & smooth (which is rare).
GH ofcourse has the advantage of keeping it all 'alive' and changing things with sliders/graphs/image painting, compared to Rhinoscript which is a run-once operation -- so that's where one makes a choice between recursive looping (in RS) & live interactivity (in GH). I'd say RS mostly wins the battle because interactivity is fancy, but recursion can be a necessity.
Now to VB.net. The one barrier I have hit most often with GH is speed. If you were working on a fairly large data set, or doing a number of surface/polysurface/brep operations, you hit the performance ceiling real fast, which is when the interactivity becomes almost useless -- because its nowhere close to real time anymore even if you had 12gb ram. Thus steps in VB.net (A bit of clever scripting can make a really significant difference).
Working a series of geometric operations in a code component is much faster than doing it through native GH components due to the fact that each native component comes with tonnes off error trapping code, preview generation (I think even if you turn it off, its still being computed, only not displayed), etc. while with VB, you can circumvent a lot of that.
If GH were to handle geometry even remotely comparable to what GC/Catia* can do, it would have a long way to go -- I am not sure if that is even the objective. For instance, I am currently working on a tower where all geometry is only meshes and polylines - no degree 3 curves, no surfaces/polysurfaces. This is because if the entire tower is to stay 'alive', Meshes are the lightest option with the amount of geometry being generated. And most of it is through code... there's only the sliders and a couple of other components that are GH native -- and its still in GH due to the interactivity. (I think there's a vast potential with Meshes that GH/Rhino are really not tapping into. There are all the building blocks, but no significant implementation. Giulio's weaverbird plugin is just a small example).
*GC/Catia cost significantly more than Rhino itself, and GH is a free plugin to Rhino. Morever, these softwares were written to be parametric modelling softwares from day1, unlike GH which is an add-on over the RhinoSDK, which was never developed from such a perspective. So a very very unfair comparison there, but GH is becoming so significant that its got a forum of its own -- gaining an almost 'independent software' status. I just hope the McNeel marketing people are not listening :)…
we're actually using PET sheets for our flexures. We try to design so that the flexures don't go through more than +/- 30 degrees of deflection. If the angular deflection is kept small, the lifetime can definitely be on the order of 1000000 cycles.
As for the design process (item 2), ideally the designer would be able to use a simple 3D CAD tool to design a model of a robot, and the geometry would be represented by dimensioning the individual parts in the model. Maybe there should be some parametric primitive kinematic building blocks like four bar linkages, box frames, etc. that a user could build up a robot from. But, the key functionality the tool needs to provide is for the designer to be able to visualize how the robot will move when it's fabricated. This could mean observing (or plotting) the motion of a leg, a wing, or a series of body segments. Ideally, then, the tool would generate an unfolding of the design. How this would work is still very vague - maybe the user would assist in the unfolding, maybe there would be an optimization routine that computes optimal unfoldings based on criteria like minimal waste, or fewest pieces (I would *not* constrain the problem to construction from a single monolithic piece as in origami). The biggest problem we have right now, is that our design process is totally divorced from fabrication. Even if we went through the trouble of extruding individual thin plates in Solidworks and creating an assembly for visualizing the kinematics of a mechanism, that particular representation doesn't transfer easily to the fabrication process because it's essentially monolithic.
Item 3: The 2D drawing is simple a drawing done manually in Solidworks. There are different layers for flexure cuts, outline cuts, and potentially any cuts to be made in the plastic flexure layer. Depending on the robot, there may be many separate pieces for different parts and linkages in a single robot. For example, the drawing for a robot containing a fourbar linkage may have the linkage laid out as a physically separate piece consisting of five rigid links connected by four flexure hinges. During assembly, the designer would then fold up that linkage and insert it into the robot wherever it's supposed to go. If you're curious you can see some sample 2D drawings for older designs here: http://robotics.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ronf/Prototype/ under the "Example Structures" heading.
I noticed Kangaroo seems to be a popular choice for physical simulations. I don't really even need to include forces like bending resistance - I'm happy to allow the design tool to approximate flexures as pin joint-type hinges. Once the design is unfolded, the details of how to cut the flexures could be worked out in a post-processing step. I wouldn't expect the tool to be able to realistically simulate the bending of the hinges.
I'm going to have to dig a lot deeper into understanding Grasshopper and Kangaroo. I only just got started with Grasshopper today by following the folding plate tutorial on wa11ace.com.au today. …