pavilion) and from that i want to fabricate it using some paper or card bored .
for modeling the pavilion i used a simple kangaroo based algorithm to generate the desired form using mesh 3d plane faces . there was no problem with this part and i was able to get the mesh from geometry out put . then i wanted to use that output mesh to panelize it and then adding tabs and the nesting and cutting to get the parts. but the problem was every tutorial i looked up were using surfaces to panelize and nest so this was the first problem to convert the mesh into a surface and then panelazing and nesting . i tried using the mesh2nurbs but it didn't work out for me . (because i needed a single surface not some poly surfaces) . (attachment | input mesh )
so i started from the beginning and tried using a surface as an input for kangaroo and thus getting a surface as an output so i did that and tried to create a surface by the Surface from points component . and the result was not good the surface was kinda messed up and the the reason was the points were not ordered well i guess . so this was another problem for me . (attachment | input surface)(picture below)
so basically i have a few main questions :
1. is there a tutorial or any topic or book or somthing that explains from 0 to 100 from design to fabrication (as an example a pavilion) ?
2. can i use the mesh to panelize and nest and then fabricate ? and are there any tips or tricks to it ?
3. is the starting from surface for me a good idea or not ?
i am extremely sorry for talking this much and i'm grateful for the time you spent on reading this .
best wishes ; Babak.
…
tects to overcome the imposition of prefixed architectural forms in order to enhance performance-driven design and responsive kinetic solutions that interact with humans and environment. Lectures on parametric design simulation, generative and form finding as well as environmental optimization, analyzing and digital fabrication prototyping, are integrated together in 2 main modules. Students from the beginning of the school will be divided into groups to compete on a case project increasing their ability to define project parameters, design factors, solving problems, understanding factors relationships, involving environmental and human sensors, and optimizing their projects solutions in smart and inelegance way. In the beginning of the school, parametric modelling will be introduced (Rhino3d and Grasshopper) to build the necessary skills of parametric generative form methods to students. In this module will be dedicated to digital design methods and physical model making by various fabrication techniques, including laser cutting and 3D printing. Students will focus on the idea of creating algorithmic architectural form inspired by nature and their research will be supported by a series of lectures. Also they will be split into groups in order to develop projects assigned by the professors. This Module also adds Form Finding techniques to the parametric design strategies. Students will learn how material system behaviors, physical forces and responsive structure system can be digitally simulated into parametric models in order to explore complex forms that optimized and adapted to its natural behaviors, initial forces, material, particles, and structure systems. Series of lectures on form finding, natural structural algorithms, material behaviors, and physical forces will lead student to optimize their project forms. It is experimental laboratory in which kinetic interactive Architectural models are tested and designed. Students will develop novel solutions, building upon learning responsive kinetic systems. They will design Architectural responsive robotic systems inspired by nature. Projects will transform by adapting to environmental conditions and human behaviors happening at real and virtual levels.
…
cremental release is available for download. It fixes several bugs reported in the 0.9.0005 & 0.9.0006 versions. To wit:
Computer mice with smooth scrolling would not zoom well, this is fixed.
Previewable parameters with a lot of consecutive null items would crash, this is fixed.
Identical GHA files would collide during the loading process, this is handled.
GHA files with identical names would collide during the loading process, this is handled.
Solver Undo setting was not persistent, this is fixed.
Widget ZUI Zoom setting was not persistent, this is fixed.
Markov Widget Corner setting was not persistent, this is fixed.
Markov Widget Suggestion Count setting was not persistent, this is fixed.
Drag and Drop on Document and Template preview materials wasn't recorded, this is fixed.
AssignDataToParameter() COM-Access method was broken, this is fixed.
Geometry and Generic parameters with persistent data would not deserialize correctly, this is fixed.
Operator shortcuts via the Canvas popup instantiation menu no longer assigned data to the second parameter, this is fixed.
Cull Duplicates component did not always show the correct label upon deserialization, this is fixed.
Legacy VB/C# components would not correctly deserialize List access on input parameters, this is fixed.
Cloud Display component would still display old sprites on disconnect, this is fixed.
Minor changes to a document would trigger lengthy preview cache updates, slowing Grasshopper down. This is fixed.
Sphere 4Pt did not work correctly, this it fixed.
Failed data conversions in parameters would result in missing entries, this is fixed.
Text Tag components (2D & 3D) would not bake via the component menu, this is fixed.
There are also some new features:
Added Jump object for quickly navigating across a Canvas (Params.Util dropdown).
Added Relative Differences component which is basically the inverse of Mass Addition (Math.Operators dropdown).
Added tooltip wiggle controls to the Preferences window, Interface section.
'Draw Full Names' now also attempts to change the display of existing components, but only in the active document.
Drag+Dropping GHA, GHPY and GHUSER files onto the canvas now puts the original file into the bin.
Replaced Set Union component with a new one that has variable input parameters.
Replaced Set Intersection component with a new one that has variable input parameters.
Replaced And and Ternary And components with a single new one that has variable input parameters.
Replaced Or and Ternary Or components with a single new one that has variable input parameters.
Replaced Concatenate component with a new one that has variable input parameters.
Concatenate component now has a segment join option available via the component menu.
Added Digit options to the Transform Matrix Display object.
Integer parameters which represent options now have more informative context menus.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia
…
Added by David Rutten at 11:06am on September 14, 2012
it seems that was this. Now all is working fine !
Glad that it worked! But I am still a bit worried. Gismo components only modify the gdal-data/osmconf.ini file and no other MapWinGIS file. So your MapWinGIS installation files should not be compromised. The fact that you did not get the "COM CLSID" error message when running the "Gismo Gismo" component suggests that MapWinGIS has been properly installed. So I wonder if the cause for the permanent "invalid shapes" warning has again something with the fact that your system is again not allowing the MapWinGIS to properly edit the osmconf.ini. Maybe this problem will appear again, and again, and reinstallation of MapWinGIS every time can be somewhat bothersome.
- About the terrain generation, is it possible to have the texture from google or other provider mapped onto the terrain surface from gismo component ? (Same as using the ladybug terrain generator in fact). I try to used the image extracted by ladybug component and then applied it to the gismo terrain but the texture is rotated by 90°.
The issue with the rotation can be solved by swapping/reversing the U,V directions of the terrain surface. A slightly more important issue is that terrain surface generated with Gismo "Terrain Generator" component might have a bit smaller radius than what the radius_ input required. This stems from the fact that the terrain data first needs to be downloaded in geographic coordinate system, and then projected. Some projecting issues may occur at the very edges of the projected terrain, so I had to slightly cut out the very edges of the terrain which results in the actual terrain diameters being slightly shorted in both directions. This means that if you apply the same satellite image from Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component to Gismo "Terrain Generator" component the results may not be the same.I attached below a python component which tries to solve this issue by extending the edges of Gismo "Terrain Generator" terrain, and then cutting them with the cuboid of the exact dimensions as the radius_ input. Have in mind that this extension of the original terrain at its edges is not a correct representation of the actual terrain in that location. But rather just an extension of the isoparameteric curve of the terrain surface. So basically: some 0 to 10% (0 to 10 percent of the width and length) of the terrain around all four edges is not the actual terrain for that location, but rather just its extension.The python component is located at the very right of the definition attached below.
Also, if you would like to use the satellite images from Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component along with "OSM shapes", sometimes you may find slight differences in position of the shapes. This is due to openstreetmap data not being based on Google Maps (that's what Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component is using), but rather on Bing, MapQuest and a few others.
- About the requiredKeys_ input of OSM shapes, I understand what you mean and your advice, but in most cases I use it, the component was working fine even without input. I think it's better to extract all tags, values and keys of the selected area, instead of searching for specific ones as I try to find all data related to what I want after, isn't it ? To check what keys are present on the area also.
Ineed, you are correct.I though you were trying to only create a terrain, 3d buildings and maybe find some school or similar 3d building, for these two locations. The recommendation I mentioned previously is due to shapefiles having a limit (2044) to how many keys it can contain. This requires further testing of some big cities locations with maybe larger radii, which I haven't performed due to my poor PC configuration. But in theory, I imagine that it may happen that a downloaded .osm file may have more than 2044 keys. In that case shapefile will only record 2044 of them, and disregard the others. That was my point.But again 2044 is a lot of keys, and I haven't been checking much this in practice. For example, when I set the radius_ to 1000 meters, and use your "3 Rue de Bretonvilliers Paris" location I get around 350 something keys, which is way below the 2044.Another reason why one should use the requiredKeys_ input is to make the Gismo OSM components run quicker: for example, the upper mentioned 350 something keys will result in 350 values for each branch of the "OSM shapes" component's "values" output.Which means if you have 10 000 shapes, the "OSM shapes" component will have 10 000 branches with 350 items on each branch (values). This can make all Gismo OSM components very heavy, and significantly elongate the calculation process.With requiredKeys_ input you may end up with only a couple of tens of items per each branch.Sorry for the long reply.…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 8:57am on June 11, 2017
(registrants will be able to re-watch it anytime) GOAL: understanding and managing surface continuity SOFTWARE: Rhinoceros, Grasshopper, Kangaroo 2 PREREQUISITES: basic experience of 3D modeling in Rhino LANGUAGE: English LENGTH: 160 minutes approximately TUTOR: Arturo Tedeschi
REGISTER HERE
One of the characteristics of contemporary design is a clear reduction of all visible connections, pursuing the idea of a seamless flow of curves and surfaces. From product design to automotive, from naval design to architecture’s envelope, understanding and managing surface continuity is an essential skill. The online webinar “Zebra” will introduce attendees to the notion of surface continuity in Rhino-Grasshopper. The lesson will cover mathematical aspect of curvature continuity, modeling strategies and practical examples. Contents are intended for users with basic knowledge of 3D modeling in Rhino. The webinar will be a fully interactive event hosted “live” but also available as a recorded video. Registrants will be able to re-watch it anytime. Zebra is part of our Parametric Vibrations webinar series. Tutor: Arturo Tedeschi. Language: English.
Main Topics:
NURBS representation
Notion of curvature for curves and surfaces
Curvature continuity for curves and surfaces: G0 – G3
Surface continuity in Rhino. Analysis tools: curvature analysis, Zebra, environmental map
Surface continuity in Rhino: tools, modeling strategies and tips for surface continuity.
Examples
Overview of continuity tools in Grasshopper
…
, presso la sede Manens-Tifs, nei giorni 26,27 e 28 maggio 2016.
Il comfort visivo e la gestione dell’illuminazione naturale in relazione al risparmio energetico diventano sempre più rilevanti per una progettazione innovativa degli edifici. Ad esempio, il nuovo protocollo LEED 4 riconosce crediti per le simulazioni di daylighting e conferma l’importanza degli aspetti progettuali per “collegare gli occupanti con lo spazio esterno, rinforzare i ritmi circadiani, ridurre i consumi di energia elettrica per l’illuminazione artificiale con l’introduzione della luce naturale negli spazi”. Senza strumenti software per la simulazione della luce non è possibile ottenere risultati di qualità. Radiance è un software validato, utilizzato sia a livello di ricerca che dai progettisti ed è tra i più accurati per la simulazione professionale della luce naturale e artificiale. Non ha limiti di complessità geometrica ed è adatto a essere integrato in altri software di calcolo e interfacce grafiche. Queste ultime facilitano le procedure di programmazione. Le principali e più versatili saranno oggetto del corso (DIVA4Rhino e Ladybug+ Honeybee, plug-in per Grasshopper e Rhinoceros 3D).
Il corso è rivolto a progettisti e ricercatori che vogliano acquisire strumenti pratici per la simulazione con Radiance al fine di mettere a punto e verificare le soluzioni più adatte alle proprie esigenze. Sono previste lezioni di teoria e pratica con esempi ed esercitazioni volte a coprire in modo dimostrativo ed interattivo i concetti trattati.
Le domande di iscrizione devono essere presentate entro il 12 maggio 2016.
La brochure con i contenuti del corso e tutte le informazioni sono disponibili su questo link
Il corso è sponsorizzato da Pellinindustrie.…
eded to calculate many Waterplane Areas and the GH Area component was bogging things down. I looked to Basic Ship Theory and the use of Simpson’s Rule which in this case mirrors an intersection between a Half Hull and a waterline and then divides up the enclosed waterplane into an even number of equally spaced segments to calculate the area. The result of which is 99.997% of the Rhino and GH area and about a thousand times quicker (more actually). But when checking my method I lofted the simple section curves and fed this into an Area component and had a result a hundred times quicker than the original. This got me thinking that it was the complexity of the Surface that was a problem so I rebuilt the curve with the same number of points as used in the Simpson’s Rule calculation… This was even worse now taking 4 minutes as opposed to 2.8. Wondering why, I realised that the original surface and my Simpson’s surface where created 90º to each other. One lofted from one side of the vessel to the other whereas the quicker method lofted along the length. So I swapped the UV of the original and low and behold 4.3s….
The methods, results and images of the different area calculations are shown below with Simpson’s Rule at the top followed down by: Simpson’s Surface, Original, Swapped UV, and Simplified at the bottom. Also I attach the Definition AreaQuestion.gh
It’s also interesting to note that Rhino Itself does not take anywhere near as long to calculate.
All achieve as fast as I can select a surface and right click
I know the Area component does a lot more than what Simpson’s rule can achieve i.e. 3D surfaces with complex shapes but it would appear that some sort of evaluation of the surface regarding the UV direction might speed things up or if there was a check for planar surfaces to implement a numerically faster approach such as Simpson’s Rule.
I hope this was all of some use.
Slaynt vie!
Danny
…
h tubes are redundant so surfaces overlap instead of interpenetrate, so it is not a good system.
Cocoon is the best answer these days unless you can get Exowire/Exoskelton to work. If you want more control over shape, feed your uncapped tubes into Cocoon as meta-surfaces and delete any and all of the inner meshes to just keep the outer single closed one, but this is just duplicate-culled lines used as meta-lines:
Turn down the CS input to 0.005 for this result, from 0.02 used for faster preview. In fact bake the lines and only test Cocoon on a few of them in order to get the result you want before doing the whole thing.
Whole thing at 0.005 cell size takes 5 minutes for Cocoon and 2 minutes for refinement to a smooth and even mesh.
Actually, seems like 0.005 is way too fine, giving a 600MB STL file.
So, 0.01 cell size at less than a minute total:
159MB STL which is still a bit too big for places like Shapeways. Wow. OK then 0.02 cell size, but I have to increase diameter or my two smoothing steps in refine collapse things too much, an in fact I set it to no smoothing, getting more volume and a reasonable 46MB STL file:
Alas, now it's more frail and overly organic rather than mechanical. Increasing diameter just merges it into perforated plates too much. File size is simply an issue with this complexity level, so different 3D printing services will have different file size limits.
Exowire/Exoskeleton would work but your original mesh hasn't been MeshMachine remeshed to be regular, so short segments ruin it. Here is just a corner:
I think that's why more wires fails, at least. Pretty temperamental component.
Switching to MeshMachine is needed, I guess, instead of Cocoon refine, to remesh away so many small triangles along the boring tubes. Crucial for good remeshing was to set Flip to 0 or I failed to get a rough enough mesh.
It's an adaptive mesh so I can retain good detail while roughing out the tubes.
MeshMachine is terribly slow for this whole thing, like 6 minutes, and blows up for this overly rough setting, 20 steps, so less rough, ugh, I'm out of time. I think free Autocad Meshmixer is the way to make a better smaller mesh, after a refined output from Cocoon. MeshMachine is just too slow to tweak and when it blows up, creating massive triangles jutting out, it hangs too when you change settings.
Starting with a Cocoon refined mesh certainly helped Meshmixer. Using triangle budget lets me have full control. Here is 150K triangles instead of 200K:
STL file size down to 40MB. I think Shapeways is 70 or 100MB limit? So it can be even finer. Here is the Cocoon output versus the Meshmixer reduction:
To use Meshmixer, turn on View > Show Wireframe, Command-S to select all and use Edit > Reduce from the palette that appears.
Cocoon can end up making a few inner meshes where things get weird in your uneven original mesh with small holes so fish out the main mesh by adding a List Item node.
The best strategy for Cocoon is indeed to make an overly fine STL so you avoid any need to tweak forever in Grasshopper, but then you can achieve a smaller mesh file size while preserving shape instead of things turning all smearly organic in Grasshopper.…