th a graphic editor (GH) hosted in a CAD app that has primitive assembly/component capabilities and/or feature driven ops (Rhino). Did I've mentioned that Rhino is a surface modeler? (meaning the obvious).
3. Imagine a "seed" collection of assemblies related with various membrane components made in SW. Say: geometry (prior solid ops) and parameters (the feature driven part of the equation, in most of cases managed with some RDBMS). You should port these to GH (a variety of ways exist for that) and create the bare minimum of "solids" in GH as instance definitions. There's 2 main reasons to do that: (a) effectively communicating back on an assemply/component schema (via STEP) and ... (b) achieving manageable collections when in GH. These are critical for clash detection (when outlining some topology in GH, therefore NEVER work just with "curves") and "variation" control of some sort (up to a point). Of course for high class designs (where the devil hides in the details) this is NOT the best imaginable solution ... you'll need CATIA for such an integrated (all in one) procedure. On the other hand many could (wrongly) argue that CATIA is expensive (rather naive argument if a company has a certain turnover).
4. So, in general I would strongly suggest to use instance definitions of items in some sort of "intermediate state" of detail (an 100% undoable task without code) structured in such a way (classic assembly/component MCAD mentality blah, blah) that SW could take benefit of a possible modified "base topology" and proceed by finishing variations of the given assembly (feature driven stuff as usual).
5. Then export (STEP 214) back portions of the assemblies (and parameters used) to R/GH if and when this is required (for instance for BIM disciplines ... but Rhino is not a BIM app, nor it would ever be).
6. If you are familiar with code matters ... start thinking the whole puzzle that way, if not my advise is to find someone to design such a "procedure" (say an "app") using solely code, but this is not a task for the inexperienced by any means.
best, Peter…
e buttons that need pressing and then call Button.PerformClick() on them. But that requires a .NET exe.
I think you're out of luck in this case, there do exist automation tools on Windows that can start apps and press certain buttons, but I do not know which ones are good and which ones can be controlled via command-line arguments.…
Added by David Rutten at 6:16am on August 24, 2014
milar real-life AEC things that in fact are complex assemblies ... then your next (actually the first) step should be top-dog MCAD apps (but try Microstation + Generative components as well).
But given the opportunity there's 2 kind of "parametric" things out there:
1. The Topology (an abstract collection mostly of coordinate systems) that can been handled via graphical editors like GH. If there's some logic behind ... then ... maybe ... we can talk about algorithmic stuff (but who cares about names? not me anyway).
2. The real-life 3d things that are designed via dimension driven design, history based modeling, feature modelling etc etc (using exclusively high end solid modeling apps NOT surface modellers like Rhino). Basically you design these "by hand" (by mouse in fact) and then you "export" their "events" that "matter" to the app that does the 1 > then either you change them (clash/cost/structural/aesthetic reasons etc) or you change the topology. If these are ready parts from the market (kinda like the Norsman cable tensioners used) then ... you just keep them in RDBMS controlled repositories and use them accordingly. But if the project is really bespoke you can design them too as well (blame client's vanity).
So you have 2 kinds of "parametric": the theory and the reality ... whilst the "ideal" solution is some kind of equilibrium between "I want" and "I can".
On the other hand doing FEA on real-life bespoke complex parts ... well .... as I said months ago > what about some other Project? he, he.
But ... hope dies last ... there's a "middle" solution as well: wait for the 4 horsemen (the 4 C# that in fact are 5).
You'll be surprised…
gt; most probably > adios Amigos.
3. WP Loop VS ... > see above
4. Daniel VS ... > see above.
There's other dedicated apps for handling huge amount of data (using very fast ball pivot algorithms for dealing with the gazillion of points).…
lled CGA, which does what I think you are looking for. Download the trial version: http://www.esri.com/apps/products/cityengine2/index.cfm
and then try the Shape Grammar tutorials (6 and 9 of the following page):
http://video.arcgis.com/series/62/cityengine
Best regards,
Eduardo…
Added by castroecosta at 6:40am on November 25, 2012
s to have an actual business plan. Pricing can be set to support the viability of the business and thus is (more or less) specific to each individual business.
Thinking about it a different way, all those reasons (and probably then some) are why David keeps saying he wants to keep GH free. Techinically there's no obligation to upgrade GH or even provide any support (but the expectation is there...).
But what about the App Store model? Clearly any individual can make an app and sell it for $1.99. Determining app pricing must involve other considerations than regular commercial development.
P.S. my favorite app of all time: I feel rich…
here), can eventually name them something a little more different, as they perhaps sound like they belong together much more than is the actual case.
You can find the right plugin here: http://www.food4rhino.com/app/human…