glass panel).
2. This actually means that the parts on duty they don't differ that much. Meaning that we can use an "average" size (and "local" topology) acting as the Jack for all trades.
3. Meaning that we can effectively solve the abstract topology with an abstract app the likes of GH and then place in properly defined coordinate systems all the real-life bits and nuts ... closely "emulating" a pro solution (that could "adjust" the parts as well).
4. This means that one particular C# needs more lines of code since as it is it defines cable axis on a per nod to node basis ... but in fact these are defined as the min segment between curves (circles to be exact).
5. Additionally the end part of each strut differs depending on how many pairs of stabilizing cables are used (either 2 or 1). Meaning some lines of code more for defining the proper coordinate systems for the instance definitions.
6. This is the reason that I've postponed mailing to you the 4 horsemen (because PRIOR finishing the whole you MUST define what parts to use: the classic bottom-top design approach).
But in order to receive the Salvation (aka: Apocalypse) you MUST answer correctly to a simple puzzle:
Provided that money is no object, pick your car:
1. Ferrari 245 (Less is more)
2. Lancia Stratos (Lethal).
3. Cobra 427 (Men only)
4. Ford GT40 (Mama mia)
5. Ariel Atom (Mental)
6. Aston Zagato GTB4 (Sweet Jesus)
7. Fulvia HF Fanalone (THE racer)
8. Lambo Miura (Enough said)
9. Lotus Elise (Just add lightness)
10. Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione (In red)…
Get plenty of RAM. Windows 32-bit can assign 2MB of Ram per process, so if you have lots of RAM, you can run Rhino+Grasshopper in memory all the way. I'd say get at least 4GB, and preferably 8GB. If you have a 64-bit machine, then it pays off to go even higher than that.
2) Get fast RAM. Memory access is the main bottleneck in many applications, so the faster the RAM the faster most apps will work.
3) Get a fast processor, rather than lots of slow processors. Only a few apps out there can truly use Multi-Threading (Rhino and Grasshopper cannot). These days, CPU manufacturers try and dress up multi-core CPUs as the next best thing. It is not. It is a lie. Until software can truly run on multiple cores there is no benefit to this. If rendering is a big part of your job, then it does pay off to have a multi-core machine though.
4) Get a good graphics card. I've always preferred NVidia over ATI, but there are many good ATI cards as well. You can go for a gaming card (they're cheaper), but note that these are optimised for drawing triangles. If you get a professional card, it will draw lines and curves much faster.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Robert McNeel & Associates…
ents instead of code ... it could yield a nightmare of components (and a myriad of parameters). For real-life designs I would never attempt to do this without code.
2. A certain experience with Kangaroo (or some min surf other thing since using K on these ... well may be the killing a mosquito with a bazooka thing). That said I'm a great admirer of Daniel's work. But on the other hand why not?
3. A "certain" experience with trusses/space frames.
4. A "certain" experience with instance definitions (that's not doable with GH components).
5. Years of experience with parametric feature driven MCAD apps - Image35 (NX/CATIA) for designing the real-life parts (that have NOTHING to do with "abstract" concepts).
In total I would say that a similar "app" with code (excluding the min surf/mesh thing) would require 6-10 full days of work (or even more).
BTW: https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.grasshopper3d.com/forum/top...…
(probably during the course of installing some other apps)
Still Grasshopper is showing this error (I've installed the very latest build).
What do I do?…
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…
r visual programming tools in the games world. MS's Kodu, looks interesting. Kismet and Visual3d look even more interesting..... mainly because they are more 'interactive' or 'reactive', rather than DAG-based.
Seems like the evolution path for GH-similar apps is:
1. base 3d or CAD app based on C/C++ code.
2. Add scripting language interface
3. Add some kind of visual interface
4. Add graph sorting / propagation engine
5. Re-jig base 3d or CADD app to make managed/interpreted scripts run faster, multi-threaded.
6. Add dynamic typed language, DLR stuff
6. ....
6. Add constraints solver...?
7. Rebuild CAD display engine to be procedural at the GPU level?
Seems like there are available tools for converting scripts into some kind of flowchart. There are even visual debuggers. MS even has something called the 'Debugger Canvas'. Spreadsheet constraints.
Seems like the time is ripe for lots of new apps like GH.
…
omponents and Revit means Dynamo.
Both are masterminded by the very same fella (Robert Aish: an ex Bentley R&D head, then Autodesk paid more [life sucks]).
AECOSim eats Revit for breakfast but has a far steeper learning curve ... meaning that the masses would opt for Revit.…
to control which part is allowed to connect to other parts and how. We will first look at the basics of defining rules, and then how to use the rule generator to create them automatically. Finally we will look at how to use connection types to allow more control on the final aggregation.
Video topics:
- Rules introduction: 00:27
- Rules basics: 4:25
- Using the rules generator: 13:22
- Using rule types: 16:58
Download the tutorial files here: https://bit.ly/wasp101_003
Watch the full playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCn3-_9Z4-E5A0EFluiMldlEbDufMiN1g
---
Download Wasp at: https://www.food4rhino.com/app/wasp
Wasp Newsletter: https://mailchi.mp/e0ccee5c4e32/wasp_newsletter
Source Code: https://github.com/ar0551/Wasp…
ts (Rhino 6 and everything that came after the plugin itself was written).When I tested it, it had some issues with a large number of lines and if parameters weren't carefully tuned it failed to produce consistent meshes.If some of you has time and skills on their hands, there is the source code available on GitHub (link is in the description). For personal use, time ago I updated a definition by David Stasiuk to make nodes and beams, based on 3D Convex Hull component. You can still find it here:https://www.grasshopper3d.com/xn/detail/2985220:Comment:1745216Warning: in Rhino 6 the Starling Convex Hull component doesn't seem to work well, you can use the 3D Convex Hull from the MeshEdit plugin instead (https://www.food4rhino.com/app/meshedit - just substitute the 3D Convex Hull component in the definition and it should work fine).…
ay to make some real-life proper nodes for that kind of T truss (we use machined balls solely for MERO KK type of normal trusses).
3. I'll post here soon a modular demo system suitable for this case (real-life for AEC purposes - NOT for decorative/artistic stuff, I don't care about that since I'm an engineer). This would include a policy for the X struts that require a variable linkage (the X angle). and in the same time a multi cable tensioner "bracket".
4. "Basic" coding next week for T trusses ? Er ... well ... are you kidding me right? I mean that ... hmm ...
5. C# things (about 2+K) around me are classified into 2 "groups": things that are weapons in the right hands and others that serve as demos/start points for mostly abstract cases. The former are internal the latter for public use. I'll remove some sensitive lines from a T truss C# maker and I'll post it here as a "guideline" ... for ...hmm... 4.
All in all:
Provided that you have system(s) on hand (see 3) that work 100% OK in an ideal world you'll need:
A. Something that does the general topology AND (especially) clash detection. Maybe Kangaroo as well as a "first pass" with regard rigidity of the structure in case that you don't adopt a classic T "configuration" (there are many > Google tensegrity).
B. Connectivity trees that relate nodes/edges and maybe faces (say for roofing panels/curtain walls etc etc). Without them is impossible to assemble the T thingy.
C: Something that places real-life "parts" as instance definitions and/or (optional) a "tracking variants history" ability.
D. A bullet proof way to EXPORT things (on an assembly/component schema, say: STEP214 - see C) into a proper BIM app (the likes of AECOSim/Revit) and/or into a MCAD app (the likes of CATIA/NX).
E. FEA/FIM in order to validate the structural ability of the components and the T truss itself.
F. Roofing/cladding/envelope components.
G. "Interactive" cost estimation(s) - T trusses are hideously expensive at least versus "classic" trusses (exactly like a planar glazing system that retails 3++ times more than a humble semi-structural one)…