r." I'm sorry to hear that, I take the interface and ease-of-use rather seriously so this sounds like 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."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."[...] 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.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'.
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.
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 this time around 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.
Sliders."I think they should be optional."They are optional."The “N” should turn into the number if set."What if you assign more than one integer? I think I'd rather see a component with inputs 'N', 'P' and 'X' rather than '5', '8' and '35.7', but I concede that is a personal preference."But if I plug it into something that'll only accept a 1, a 2, or a 3, that slider should self set accordingly."Agreed.
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."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.
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.
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.
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.
Organisation.Agreed. We need to come up with better ways to organise, document, version, share and simplify GH files. GH1 UI is ok for small projects (<100 components) but can't handle more complexity.
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
david@mcneel.com…
diseño computacional.
La Visiting School digitalMed 2014, promovida por Medaarch y Emwesoft Sevilla S.L.N.E, se celebrará en la ciudad de Sevilla, y tendrá como tema central la Smart City y el estudio de la interacción entre las personas y su entorno a través de objetos, dispositivos e infraestructuras.
Fecha limite de inscripción: 16/01/2014
info@emwesoft.com
OBJECTIVOS Adquirir la capacidad de gestionar flujos de datos en los que las ciudades están sumergidas, para insertar proyectos que sean útiles, contextualizados, poco invasivos y aptos a establecer un intercambio de informaciones con los usuarios.
El objetivo final es redactar un catálogo de proyectos que puedan formar parte de un contexto urbano y puedan delinear el perfil de las ciudades en las que viviremos en el futuro próximo.
METODOLOGÍA Metodología basada en el aprendizaje activo, en la puesta en práctica de métodos activos que estimulan y facilitan el intercambio de experiencias y puntos de vista entre el alumnado: Buscando la participación del alumno, planteando todas las cuestiones que considere necesarias a la hora de aclarar conceptos.
Fomentando el debate y la colaboración entre los participantes.
Dando respuesta a las dudas planteadas.
La metodología será presencial, lo cual permite un mayor acercamiento entre profesor y alumno, y en consecuencia una mayor asimilación de los conceptos.
PROGRAMA Los primeros días del taller serán dedicados a establecer definiciones comunes que nos permitan trabajar a partir de significados compartidos. En esta fase se tratarán temáticas que recurren a menudo en la práctica arquitectónica contemporánea, es decir el diseño computacional, la fabricación digital y los data driven. Los alumnos tendrán la posibilidad de aprender a usar software para el diseño paramétrico, como Rhinoceros y el plug-in Grasshopper, a través del conocimiento de dichos software, el alumno conseguirá competencias teóricas y técnicas, para un enfoque al diseño computacional.
PROFESORADO La formación será impartida por profesionales con amplio conocimiento y experiencia en el ámbito. Los tutores serán los arquitectos Amleto Picerno Ceraso y Francesca Viglione.
DURACIÓN TOTAL DEL TALLER
40 horas
QUIÉN PUEDE PARTICIPAR?
. Funcionarios con una actitud proactiva hacia la construcción de ciudades inteligentes;
. Académicos y estudiantes en áreas relacionadas con el desarrollo de proyectos y soluciones tecnológicas para ciudades digitales y ciudades inteligentes;
. Arquitectos;
. Ingenieros;
. Diseñadores;
. Profesionales de las tecnologías de información y con relación a el área de tecnología.
REQUISITOS BÁSICOS
- Conocimiento básico de Rhinoceros
- Inglés medio
*Disponibilidad de un intérprete español.
PRECIO y Tarifa especial
El cuesto del taller es de 500€.
También hay facilitacióno en caso de Inscripciones de grupo: para cada grupo formado por 5 inscriptos, que paguen en un única solución, el costo total será de 4 miembros y no 5 (una persona gratis)
DONDE
Emwesoft Sevilla S.L.N.E C/ Monte Carmelo 21, 41011 – Sevilla (España)
Teléfono: +34 (955) 224 524
Email: info@emwesoft.com
Internet: www.emwesoft.com …
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
…
and export the geometry out to VVVV to render it LIVE! RawRRRR. In this case, a digital audio workstation Ableton Live, a leading industrial standard in contemporary music production.
the good news is that VVVV and ableton live lite is both free.
https://www.ableton.com/en/products/live-lite/
i am not trying to use ipad as a controller for grasshoppper. I wanted to work with a timeline (similar to MAYA or Ableton or any other DAW(digital audio workstation)) inside grasshopper in an intuitive way. Currently there is no way of SEQUENCING your definition the way you want to see that i know of.
no more combersome export import workflows... i dont need hyperrealistic renderings most of the time. so much time invested in googling the right way to import, export ... mesh settings...this workflow works for some, for some not ...that workflow works if ... and still you cannot render it live nor change sequence of instruction WHILE THE VIDEO is played. and I think no one wants to present rhinoceros viewport. BUT vvvv veiwport is different. it is used for VJing and many custom audio visual installation for events, done professionally. you can see an example of how sound and visuals come together from this post, using only VVVV and ableton. http://vvvv.org/documentation/meso-amstel-pulse
I propose a NEW method. make a definition, wire it to ableton, draw in some midi notes, and see it thru VVVV LIVE while you sequence the animation the WAY YOU WANT TO BE SEEN DURING YOUR PRESENTATION FROM THE BEGINNING, make a whole set of sequences in ableton, go back change some notes in ableton and the whole sequence will change RIGHT INFRONT of you. yes, you can just add some sound anywhere in the process. or take the sound waves (sqaure, saw, whateve) or take the audio and influence geometric parameters using custom patches via vvvv. I cannot even begin to tell you how sophisticated digital audio sound design technology got last ten year.. this is just one example which isn't even that advanced in todays standard in sound design ( and the famous producers would say its not about the tools at all.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iwz32bEgV8o
I just want to point out that grasshopper shares the same interface with VVVV (1998) and maxforlive, a plug in inside ableton. audio mulch is yet another one that shares this interface of plugging components to each other and allows users to create their own sound instruments. vvvv is built based on vb, i believe.
so current wish list is ...
1) grasshopper recieves a sequence of commands from ableton DONE
thanks to sebastian's OSCglue vvvv patch and this one http://vvvv.org/contribution/vvvv-and-grasshopper-demo-with-ghowl-udp
after this is done, its a matter of trimming and splitting the incoming string.
2) translate numeric oscillation from ableton to change GH values
video below shows what the controll interface of both values (numbers) and the midi notes look like.
https://vimeo.com/19743303
3) midi note in = toggle GH component (this one could be tricky)
for this... i am thinking it would be great if ...it is possible to make "midi learn" function in grasshopper where one can DROP IN A COMPONENT LIKE GALAPAGOS OR TIMER and assign the component to a signal in, in this case a midi note. there are total 128 midi notes (http://www.midimountain.com/midi/midi_note_numbers.html) and this is only for one channel. there are infinite channels in ableton. I usually use 16.
I have already figured out a way to send string into grasshopper from ableton live. but problem is, how for grasshopper to listen, not just take it in, and interpret midi and cc value changes ( usually runs from 0 to 128) and perform certain actions.
Basically what I am trying to achieve is this : some time passes then a parameter is set to change from value 0 to 50, for example. then some time passes again, then another parameter becomes "previewed", then baked. I have seen some examples of hoopsnake but I couldn't tell that you can really control the values in a clear x and y graph where x is time and y is the value. but this woud be considered a basic feature of modulation and automation in music production. NVM, its been DONE by Mr Heumann. https://vimeo.com/39730831
4) send points, lines, surfaces and meshes back out to VVVV
5) render it using VVVV and play with enormous collection of components in VVVV..its been around since 1998 for the sake of awesomeness.
this kind of a digital operation-hardware connection is usually whats done in digital music production solutions. I did look into midi controller - grasshopper work, and I know its been done, but that has obvious limitations of not being precise. and it only takes 0 o 128. I am thinking that midi can be useful for this because then I can program very precise and complex sequence with ease from music production software like ableton live.
This is an ongoing design research for a performative exhibition due in Bochum, Germany, this January. I will post definition if I get somewhere. A good place to start for me is the nesting sliders by Monique . http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/topics/nesting-sliders
…
ers can be applied from the right click Context Menu of either a component's input or output parameters. With the exception of <Principal> and <Degrees> they work exactly like their corresponding Grasshopper Component. When a I/O Modifier is applied to a parameter a visual Tag (icon) is displayed. If you hover over a Tag a tool tip will be displayed showing what it is and what it does.
The full list of these Tags:
1) Principal
An input with the Principal Icon is designated the principal input of a component for the purposes of path assignment.
For example:
2) Reverse
The Reverse I/O Modifier will reverse the order of a list (or lists in a multiple path structure)
3) Flatten
The Flatten I/O Modifier will reduce a multi-path tree down to a single list on the {0} path
4) Graft
The Graft I/O Modifier will create a new branch for each individual item in a list (or lists)
5) Simplify
The Simplify I/O Modifier will remove the overlap shared amongst all branches. [Note that a single branch does not share any overlap with anything else.]
6) Degrees
The Degrees Input Modifier indicates that the numbers received are actually measured in Degrees rather than Radians. Think of it more like a preference setting for each angle input on a Grasshopper Component that state you prefer to work in Degrees. There is no Output option as this is only available on Angle Inputs.
7) Expression
The Expression I/O Modifier allows you change the input value by evaluating an expression such as -x/2 which will have the input and make it negative. If you hover over the Tag a tool tip will be displayed with the expression. Since the release of GH version 0.9.0068 all I/O Expression Modifiers use "x" instead of the nickname of the parameter.
8) Reparameterize
The Reparameterize I/O Modifier will only work on lines, curves and surfaces forcing the domains of all geometry to the [0.0 to 1.0] range.
9) Invert
The Invert Input Modifier works in a similar way to a Not Gate in Boolean Logic negating the input. A good example of when to use this is on [Cull Pattern] where you wish to invert the logic to get the opposite results. There is no Output option as this is only available on Boolean Inputs.
…
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…
t defined from the discussion of radiation exchange between urban surfaces and the sky in urban heat island research (See Oke's literature list below). It will be affected by the proportion of sky visible from a given calculation point on a surface (vertical or horizontal) as a result of the obstruction of urban geometry, but it is not entirely associated with the solid angle subtended by the visible sky patch/patches.
So, I think using "geometry way" to approximate Sky View Factor is not correct. Sky View Factor calculation shall be based on the first principle defining the concept: radiation exchange between urban surface and sky hemisphere:
(image extracted from Johnson, G. T., & Watson, 1984)
Therefore, I always refer to the following "theoretical" Sky View Factors calculated at the centre of an infinitely long street canyon with different Height-to-width ratios in Oke's original paper (1981) as the ultimate benchmark to validate different methods to calculate SVF:
So, I agree with Compagnon (2004) on the method he used to calculate SVF: a simple radiation (or illuminance) simulation using a uniform sky.
The following images are the results of the workflow I built in the procedural modeling software Houdini (using its python library) according to this principle by calling Radiance to do the simulation and calculation, and the SVF values calculated for different canyon H/W ratios (shown at the bottom of each image) are very close to the values shown in Oke's paper.
H/W=0.25, SVF=0.895
H/W=1, SVF=0.447
H/W=2, SVF=0.246
It seems that the Sky View Factor calculated from the viewAnalysis component in Ladybug is not aligned with Oke's result for a given H/W ration: (GH file attached)
According to the definition shown in this component, I assume the value calculated is the percentage of visible sky which is a geometric calculation (shooting evenly distributed rays from sensor point to the sky and calculate the ratio of rays not blocked by urban geometry?), i.e solid angle subtended by visible sky patches, and it is not aligned with the original radiation exchange definition of Sky View Factor.
I'd suggest to call this geometrically calculated ratio of visible sky "Sky Exposure Factor" which is "true" to its definition and way of calculation (see the paper on Sky Exposure Factor below) so as to avoid confusion with "The Sky View Factor based on radiation exchange" as discussed in urban climate literature.
Appreciate your comments and advice!
References:
SVF: definition based on first principle
Oke, T. R. (1981). Canyon geometry and the nocturnal urban heat island: comparison of scale model and field observations. Journal of Climatology, 1(3), 237-254.
Oke, T. R. (1987). Boundary layer climates (2nd ed.). London ; New York: Methuen.
Johnson, G. T., & Watson, I. D. (1984). The Determination of View-Factors in Urban Canyons. Journal of American Meteorological Society, 23, 329-335.
Watson, I. D., & Johnson, G. T. (1987). Graphical estimation of sky view-factors in urban environments. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLIMATOLOGY, 7(2), 193-197. doi: 10.1002/joc.3370070210
Papers on SVF calculation:
Brown, M. J., Grimmond, S., & Ratti, C. (2001). Comparison of Methodologies for Computing Sky View Factor in Urban Environments. Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
SVF calculation based on first principle:
Compagnon, R. (2004). Solar and daylight availability in the urban fabric. Energy and Buildings, 36(4), 321-328.
paper on Sky Exposure Factor:
Zhang, J., Heng, C. K., Malone-Lee, L. C., Hii, D. J. C., Janssen, P., Leung, K. S., & Tan, B. K. (2012). Evaluating environmental implications of density: A comparative case study on the relationship between density, urban block typology and sky exposure. Automation in Construction, 22, 90-101. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2011.06.011
…
ll geometry.
The difference with programs like Inventor is that they are made for production, regardless of the fabrication method. I won't go into detail about that, and instead focus on the modeling process.
In this little model, the starting point actually is a bit obvious, the foundation.
The only contents in the 3dm file are 27 lines. These indicate the location of each footing, and the direction of the tilt of each column. Everything else is defined in GH with the use of numbers as input parameters.
Needless to say, instead of those lines you could obviously generate lines and control the number of columns and panels, hence establish their layout, with any algorithmic or non-algorithmic criteria you please. That marks a major difference between GH and Inventor.
You can generate geometry with Inventor via scripting/customization (beyond iLogic), with transient graphics for visual feedback similar to GH's red-default previews. However Inventor's modeling functions are not set to input and output data trees. I won't go into detail on that, but suffice to say that the data tree associativity of GH was for me the first major difference I noticed. I've used other apps with node diagram interfaces like digital fusion for non-linear video editing since the late 90's, so the canvas did not call my attention when I first started using GH.
Anyways, here's a screen capture of the foundational lines:
In the first group of components, the centerlines of the rear columns are modeled:
And the locations in elevation for connection points are set. Those elevations were just numbers I copied from Excel, but you can obviously control that any way you please. I was just trying to model this quickly.
The same was done for the rear columns:
The above, believe it or not, took me the first 5 hours to get.
Here's a screen capture of what the model and definition looked like after 4 hours, not much:
If you're interested, next post I can get into the sketching part you mentioned, which is a bit cumbersome with GH, but not really.
I wouldn't say that using GH to do this little model was cumbersome, it just needed some thinking at the beginning. You do similar initial thinking when working with a feature-based modeler.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 12:44am on February 24, 2011
ni-corso introduttivo di Rhino e Grasshoper
Il corso non spiega una stampante 3D in particolare (quelle presenti sono state realizzate dai docenti) ma si rivolge a chiunque abbia la necessità di progettare un oggetto in 3D tra cui artigiani, studenti, ingegneri, progettisti spiegando pregi e difetti di tutte le stampanti.
Dalle 14.00 alle 16.00 Andrea Bruni e Valerio Monticelli di Studio MP affronteranno i temi:
1) Introduzione al mondo della stampa 3D
2) Il primo passo è creare un modello 3D - Introduzione pratica alla modellazione 3D con gli strumenti offerti dal software Rhinoceros
3) Preparazione e slicing attraverso Cura dei modelli per ottenere i risultati desiderati - ogni singola geometria è un mondo a sé. Non faremo qualcosa per te ma ti spiegheremo come farlo da solo.
Dalle 16.00 alle 18.00 Antonino Marsala di Mandarino Blu terrà un mini-workshop di introduzione aGrasshopper e la scomposizione di un pattern matematici secondo il processo di reverse engineering.
- Introduzione alla modellazione parametrica/generativa attraverso l'uso di Grasshopper- Il fiore della vita: significato simbolico e matematico- Scomposizione geometrica e analitica- Creazione del pattern attraverso la geometria generativa- Applicazioni pratiche
Biglietto 10,00 €
Biglietti disponibili al seguente link…
ere is often a bit of a misconception about the differences between 'mass-spring' models and FEA. Although the method of solving is different, as I do not form a global stiffness matrix, the elements themselves and the calculation of stresses in them can be effectively the same, and based on standard real material properties and sections.
Using nodes with only 3 degrees of freedom as Kangaroo does currently, axial stresses can be calculated (a spring being a very simple finite element), and bending without torsion (following the approach described in this paper), accounting for Young's modulus and sectional area. I had been focused for a while on more geometrical optimization, but recently have been looking again at clarifying the real world units and numerical values used by Kangaroo for structural purposes.
Several other ways of modelling beam/plate/volume type elements using combinations of springs are commonly used in game/animation physics, and these can indeed be difficult to link to accurate quantitative behaviour, which has perhaps helped form the impression of mass-spring models as non accurate, but it need not be so.
The approach can also be extended to 6dof nodes, in which case it becomes possible to include torsion, anisotropic bending etc, and to base these on more standard engineering formulations for beams and other elements.
In fact I've recently worked on some software together with Gennaro Senatore and Charlie Banthorpe for Expedition Workshed that implements such 6dof elements together with large displacements, realtime interaction, and options to output bending moment/shear/torsion graphically. This is browser based (you can try it here), rather than Grasshopper but I'm currently working on bringing the same approach into Kangaroo.
Maintaining interactive speeds while avoiding numerical instabilities does pose its challenges with these methods, and for many conventional structures where the displacements are small and interaction is less important I think conventional FEA will continue to be more efficient for some time, but I do believe the approaches will eventually converge.
Thinking about it - although they are very useful techniques, continuum mechanics and infinitesimal displacements are both just useful abstractions, and no less 'artificial' than mass-spring models (and I think infinitesimal displacements are particularly counter-intuitive - real things have to move to generate stresses).
Anyway, I'm always very interested in exploring collaborations and sharing of ideas about these approaches, and would love to hear any more thoughts from the Karamba team about this...
best,
Daniel…