algorithmic modeling for Rhino

Search Results - 福彩3天齐网首页正版保真『0TBH·COM』福彩三d试机号码开机号码2023年3月19日7时42分22秒.H5c2a3.kcssaaksa.com

Event: COMPUTATIONAL COUTURE: y (movement, protection, temperature regulation) but also the evolution of cultural expression precisely by exceeding the purely indexical performative relations. Designing not only for the needs but for the desires. Computational couture looks at the creation of exclusive custom-fitted clothing (typical of haute couture) through the lens of a systemic approach, extending the sartorial techniques with 3D modeling and computation-based approaches developed in Rhinoceros and the visual programming environment Grasshopper. Aim of the workshop is to exert, infuse and expand the sartorial sensibilities to body proportions and dress making into an algorithmic approach that loops through design and fabrication by means of laser cutting and 3d printing for the design and production of a garment. Participants will be divided in teams focusing on specific aspects of the garment related to the production technique (laser cutting or 3D printing). //////////////////////////////////// WORKSHOP | calendar Day 1 Introduction to algorithms and computational design for creative disciplines Basics of 3D modeling in Rhinoceros Basics of Grasshopper Introduction to basic sartorial techniques Day 2 Testing design options for the dress in Grasshopper (tutored work) Day 3 Fabrication session . file preparation . parts testing and pre-assembly Day 4 dress fabrication and assembly Day 05 finalization of dress final presentation //////////////////////////////////// WORKSHOP | registration FEE FOR PARTICIPANTS Early bird (until 4/5): 250 € Full fee (from 5/5 until 15/5): 350 € The fee includes materials and fabrication. Plane tickets and accommodation are not included in the fee. //////////////////////////////////// REGISTRATION (until 15/5/2015) For registration please write at : beyond@iaac.net for more info visit: http://beyond.iaac.net/?page_id=1620 …; Added by Aldo Sollazzo at 7:38am on April 14, 2015

Event: Autumn DLAB: large scale prototyping techniques. The programme continues to build on its expertise on complex architectural design and fabrication processes, relying heavily on materiality and performance. Autumn DLAB brings together a range of experts – tutors and lecturers – from internationally acclaimed academic institutions and practices, Architectural Association, Zaha Hadid Architects, among others. The research generated at Autumn DLAB has been published in international media – ArchDaily, Archinect, Bustler – and peer-reviewed conference papers, including SimAUD (Simulation in Architecture and Urban Design), eCAADe (Education and research in Computer Aided Architectural Design in Europe). Autumn DLAB investigates on the correlations between form, material, and structure through the rigorous implementation of computational methods for design, analysis, and fabrication, coupled with analog modes of physical experimentation and prototype making. Each cycle of the programme devises custom-made architectural processes through the creation of novel associations between conventional and contemporary design and fabrication techniques. The research culminates in the design and fabrication of a one-to-one scale prototype realized by the use of robotic fabrication techniques, with the aim of integrating of form-finding, material computation, and structural performance. The programme is structured in two stages: PART 1 – participants are introduced to core concepts of material processes, computational methods and digital fabrication techniques. Basic and advanced tutorials on computational design and analysis tools are provided. The programme performs as a team-based workshop promoting collaboration, research and ‘learning-by-experimentation’. PART 2 – participants propose design interventions based on the skills and knowledge gained during phase 1 and supported by scaled study models and prototypes. The fabrication and assembly of a full-scale architectural intervention with the use of robotic fabrication techniques will then unify the design goals of the programme. Applications 1) A limited number of 10 places are available. To apply, please send a small portfolio (5MB) to the Visiting School Office.2) PARTIAL SCHOLARSHIPS ARE AVAILABLE. Please send a letter of intent and a small portfolio (5MB) to the Visiting School Office.3) As this programme has a limited number of places it requires a selection process, if you are offered a place on programme, the Visiting School Office will inform you of how you can complete the registration process. The deadline for applications is 13 AUGUST 2021. Eligibility The workshop is open to current architecture and design students, PhD candidates and young professionals. Software Requirements: Adobe Creative Suite, Rhino 6. No prior knowledge of software tools is required for eligibility. Fees The AA Visiting School requires a fee of £975 per participant, which includes a £60 Digital Membership fee.Students need to bring their own laptops, digital equipment and model making tools. …; Added by elif erdine at 6:30am on July 21, 2021

Comment on: Topic 'testing for surface curve intersection': pproach that will hopefully work. There's still the last part of putting it all together, but I figured I'd post my progress so you could play around with it if you wanted. This is kind of a lucky situation since its only single face breps and simple trims that are being worked with. I've attached 3 definitions to this post. The first is my reorganization of your original definition, which creates the surfaces from the point grid and culls out any surfaces that are not "on" the surface so that we don't have to deal with them later down the line. This is done through a small VB component which determines whether any of the corner points lie on the surface. If it does it keeps the surface, if not, then it doesn't. The only issue with this is that in your example file, there are some surfaces which the corner points do not lie on the surface, yet the surface that they create spans the underlying surface. At this point I'm not worrying about those. You mentioned that you only want the surfaces that lie at the edge...this can be done by testing whether all 4 corner points lie on the trimmed surface or not. The second definition is a coded version of the project function. In the example it will project to all the breps supplied, yet in the final version this probably won't be desired. Also, the direction (z axis) is hard code...this could be swapped out if desired. The third definition is an shot at trimming a surface with an input curve (that curve happens to be projected). I tried this many ways, but found that the function RhinoCutUpSurface seamed to work alright. The other attempts at doing this directly with through functions available for OnBrep were unsuccessful and very complex. Luckily because the underlying brep is an single, untrimmed surface this function works well for us, but in situations where we have a trimmed or multiface brep we'd be up a creek with out a paddle. The function creates an array of breps, but in our case it will create essentially the same surface split by our curve and joined together as a single brep with two (possibly more) faces. All we have to do is find out which face we want to keep and duplicate that into a separate brep and pass it out of the component. In the example file I'm determining which on to keep based off of the distance from a test point to the centroid of each face. The other option here, which would trump the need for projection or trimming, would be to extrude the edge curves through the surface in question, and use the BrepSplit function which requires two breps. There would still be the need to sort out what to keep, but if this approach were used, all the split pieces would be separate breps. So, all the pieces are pretty much working separately, all that I have left to do is put them all together in the base definition. The only thing that is really the hump with that is determining exactly which face to keep. My idea at the moment is to find out which corner of the surface does not like on the base surface and use that to determine which face will be thrown out. This might be one of the easier ways, but will not be rock solid. The other option is to pull a test point that's on one of the faces to the base surface and the other face, then use the distance from test point to the point on the base surface and the distance to the pulled point on the other face to the base surface to figure out which one to keep. As to sectioning off parts of the solution, you could do this in a number of ways, but here's two simple ones. In a scripting component just add a boolean value to the inputs and put the whole script inside of an if statement that looks at that boolean value. With components just add a boolean gate or a null pattern componet anywhere you want in the stream. Again, hook in a boolean toggle value, and that will stop the info from going to components that are downstream.…; Added by Damien Alomar at 10:46am on July 5, 2009

Comment on: Topic 'Could anyone explain about 'complex number'?': umbers behave differently from the reals, in that when they are squared they give a negative result. They are written as multiples of the imaginary unit i, which is defined so that: i*i=-1 Complex numbers are numbers which have two parts (hence the name complex) - a real part and an imaginary part. For example: 3+4i, or more generally: a+bi, where a and b are some real numbers. Well that's a definition, but I guess you might be wondering what is the point of them - I've not said anything yet about why they are interesting and useful... Solving cubic equations was one of their first uses, but I doubt that is what most of you are interested in. Where they really get fun is when you start looking at them geometrically. The Argand plane is a setting that allows us to treat complex numbers a bit like vectors. Each complex number a+bi defines a point relative to an origin (0,0), much the same as a vector with an x and y component. Like vectors we can add and subtract them to get a new point. But when we multiply them, unlike vectors, we add the angles (measured anti-clockwise from the positive real axis, also called the argument) and multiply the lengths (or the modulus of each number). This all follows naturally as a consequence of the definition of i as the square root of minus one. ........ That is just dipping a toe into the great depths. Complex number math, and in particular complex Analysis (calculus with complex numbers) is a vast subject that I obviously can't cover much of here. If you are interested in learning more : The Math department at Cal State Fullerton has some very nice Complex Analysis pages. Chapters 5 and 6 of the film Dimensions covers complex numbers very visually. You can watch it online here, or read the description here. Complex numbers on Wikipedia on MathWorld Hans Lundmark's complex analysis pages The book Indra's Pearls is about making certain types of fractals with complex numbers, and includes a good introduction, along with lots of pseudocode. To really engage with some of the true depth and power of complex numbers I particularly recommend the beautiful Visual Complex Analysis. This was the book that made me love this subject. I'm really looking forward to seeing more designers make use of complex numbers. I think it is a wonderful tool. It is an advanced branch of mathematics, requiring some serious study to understand, but because of its strong geometric connections, I think relatively accessible to those who tend to think more visually. Now that David has included them in Grasshopper, starting to explore them should be easier than ever.…; Added by Daniel Piker at 4:38am on November 25, 2009

Comment on: Photo 'capture_032': can work in any node of a given hierarchy tree (loaded in your work session) by making the node "active". "Nodes" can be other things as well (like workplane, clip definitions etc). Why to do that weird thing? Well, think any design being "flat" > meaning that all objects are placed in a single file (and in a single layer). Not that good > although the items are present you barely can handle them (because power is nothing without control, he he). Let's go one step further: we can start classifying objects in "groups" (like a directories/files organization in any O/S). This means, in MCAD speak, creating assemblies (a void thing kinda like a directory) that contain components/entities (kinda like files). Several steps further we end up with severely nested "arrangements" of entities (an assembly could be parent of something and child of something else). For instance, it could be rather obvious the logical classification of a "geodetic" (so to speak) structure like this : a 40000m2 "hangar" defining some thematic park. I mean : a void master that owns 4 equal void segment sets that own 4 "legs" that own various geodesic structural members + cables + membranes + you name it etc etc. Each "leg" owns the concrete base (Shared) and a rather complex set of objects. Notice that some tensile membrane "fixture" combos (see above)...act as perimeter light fixtures as well...meaning that the membrane tension plate may could be a child of a void "light" parent...or may could be a "stand alone" assembly etc etc. These arrangements can be internal (belonging in, say, a x node within the current active file) or external (belonging in a y node within another file). If they deal with the same (topologically speaking) object they define clusters of Shared entities (or variations)- where only the view transformation matrix changes (in the simple scenario, he he). For instance the disk shown above is a Shared Assembly that owns the bolts, the plates, the tension member etc etc. Selective Instancing allows modifying some attributes without affecting the topology (i.e. the geometry). The whole (terrible) mess is controlled by some tree like "dialog" (in Catia is "transparent") that is called Structure Browser. By controlled I mean (1) display/display mode with regard any tree member combo/selection set (assembly and/or component) in any View (2) clip state control (3) active status (for modifications/variations) (4) workplane control (5) drag and drop ownership control (6) .... Now...what if I would chan…; Added by peter fotiadis at 5:36am on June 11, 2011

Comment on: Topic 'How to add materials to material table': rectly except for the first material in a series. See attached image... Here is my code: Private Sub RunScript(ByVal M As Object, ByVal C As Color, ByRef AddName As Object, ByRef AddMat As Object, ByRef AddBool As Object, ByRef baseName As Object, ByRef newMatName As Object) Dim z As String = "newMatName" Dim y As String = "BaseName" Dim x As Integer = 0 Dim nRestore As String Dim mTemp As Rhino.DocObjects.Material mTemp = CType(M, Rhino.DocObjects.Material) y = mTemp.Name Dim nTemp As String If mTemp.Name.Contains("_MOD_R") = False Then nRestore = mTemp.Name nTemp = mTemp.Name & "_MOD_R" & C.R & "_G" & C.G & "_B" & C.B mTemp.Name = nTemp z = nTemp mTemp.DiffuseColor = C If Doc.Materials.Find(nTemp, True) < 0 Then Doc.Materials.Add(mTemp) x = x + 1 AddName = nTemp AddMat = mTemp End If mTemp.Name = nRestore End If newMatName = z AddBool = x BaseName = y End Sub 1) I have checked that all of the materials I am calling by name exist in the document and that data matching is correct. There doesn't seem to be anything special about the offending material except that it is always the first material that was added to the document by my script. 2) The main thing I was missing in the previous script was the "doc.Materials.Add()" -- how on earth should I have known that existed? Even a search for "doc.Materials" in the Rhinocommon SDK doesn't turn that up. I'm having a very hard time using the SDK to my advantage, it seems not to correlate to the actual code I need to write. 2b) Perfect example... now I am trying to rewrite my other component (which exposes all of the document materials) to set a few objects manually in Rhino with the Materials I want to use as templates. Now I am trying to find out how to access the material assigned to an object. Seems easy, but it's clearly not a Property, and I can't find an appropriate Method in either the Objects or Materials classes. 3) One of my problems originally, when feeding the component one material and multiple colors, was that the nTemp variable was not resetting properly for the second color. Same thing if I duplicated the material to match the list of colors. It would create a material on the first pass but concatenate "_MOD_R_G_B" in each subsequent pass and be caught by my String checker. Why is that? I thought that the nTemp Name variable would be reset in each pass by the line "mTemp = CType(M, Rhino.DocObjects.Material)" and "nTemp = mTemp.Name" combination. Does the mTemp material somehow carry over its properties in each successive pass? That's why I added the nRestore to be sure each pass reset the name back to the original. Still, I wonder if there is some problem with the way I am conceptualizing this that is causing the first material to be the same as the input material. Thanks for your help on this... Cheers, Marc…; Added by Marc Syp at 11:35am on January 6, 2012

Comment on: Topic 'UNDERSTANDING GEOMETRY.': s: [Mesh Brep] which used the Rhino mesher, [Mesh Surface] which create a rectangular grid of mesh faces on a single surface and [Simple Mesh] which attempts to represent each face in a Brep using a single Tri or Quad and accuracy be damned. Let's focus on the easy ones first... [Simple Mesh] is a first attempt at providing a completely reductionist meshing engine. It was born out of a skype discussion I had with Brian James one night during the weekly Seattle RMA developer meeting. It only handles very simple cases at the moment so it's probably not all that useful, but it's there anyway just in case. If this mesher cannot handle a certain Brep face because it's too complicated it will use the native Rhino mesher for that face. The purpose of [Mesh Surface] is to provide a single surface mesh that isn't distorted by the underlying parameterization of a surface. My approach for this actually turned out to be really slow, which is why the [Q] input is set to false by default. This mesher was never designed to take trims into account, however you get a single option [H] to control how trims interact with the mesh. [Mesh Brep] merely channels the native Rhino mesher. You can supply meshing settings that look a little bit like the meshing settings that Rhino itself exposes. With these settings you can control how seams in breps are handled, how much the mesh is allowed to deviate from the underlying geometry, how many quads you want etc. This is the most customizable option, but even here it's totally possible you can't get what you want. For example, there is no way to enforce a mesh that contains only quads. As soon as seams are stitched or whenever trims are present, you're going to get triangles along the edges of meshes. -- David Rutten david@mcneel.com…; Added by David Rutten at 1:14pm on March 12, 2014

Comment on: Topic 'Randomness...paperPavillon': this occasion, but it could be converted for DT in no time). Requires some minutes more as regards ... some things, but the usual update is due to some days. Bad news: it's C# Good news: User's Manual : 1. That thing (the C#, not me) after sorting (in a "sequential way", so tho speak) the panels (their order was chaotic) allows you to start the massacre by locating a focus of interest (and the user controllable +/- Range derived from it).2. The Range is variable (obviously) and takes care not to exceed the indices of the panel list (OK, that's elementary). 3. If you click the right button (Sadistic Q: where is it? he he) things are deleted and a new constantly self-updating list is your new List. Thus the massacre of panels is totally controllable. An autoZoom thing is also included (free of charge, but it's a bit nerve braking). Zoom factor is variable as well. 4. Then you move over (via the index slider) and start the massacre again. Notice the change of Range. 5. If you turn begin to false (initialization) and then begin to true > start all over again. 6. The other C# thing allows you to increment the index slider in a rather more convenient way. It's a bit weird: it uses delegates (A delegate is an object that knows how to call a method) and events (An event is a construct that exposes just the subset of delegate features required for the broadcaster/subscriber model - but don't ask what this means, he he) in order to talk with your slider (with a defined NickName) and perform the required value control. NOTE: without realizing it you've just (indirectly) asked one of the most important questions even exposed in this Noble Forum. I hear you : what question? Well ... wait some days for the mother of all threads: "Total control in collections on a per Item basis" may the Force (the dark option) be with you (and me) best, Peter…; Added by peter fotiadis at 8:10am on December 14, 2014

Comment on: Topic 'Shell Structure form finding(something wrong with the springs component for kan…': . as you can see I devided it into 3 parts. part1: when I try to connect the new shape to the rest of your definition,the plan z,which gives the panels individually when baked(so I can work them individually)doesn't work,apparently there is something missing when I want to explode it. that is why I connected it to the definition that I already had(part2)( the only cool part about that one is the attractor point)well it kind works,but not really(if you zoom in you can see that there are some parts overlapped and really not looking good).however I much rather your definition because of the option it gives me to work with individual panels when baked(planz). however it's around 4 am. and I have decided to make some major changes in design (to prepare some closed and open space,I'm talking about part3 that works with the fibonacci like shape,I know it doesnt look really good,but seriously 4am.!).the major problem is that I tried to make a form like that with kangaroo so the shape would be smoother but I wasnt really able to make it with kangaroo,that's why I made it manually in rhino.I was wondering if you can help me make something like this ( not exacly like this) with kangaroo or (if impossible to be made with kangaroo)even helping me optimizing it so it doesnt look as bad,as you can see when I try to work the grasshopper definition on this shape,it gives me different panel sizes for each surface and all of them are to small compared with the overall size of the so-called pavillion(give it 200-500 sq feet (20-50 sq.m).and any suggestions about the shape would be appreciated,please forgive my basic knowledge of rhino and grasshopper,and let's say I wanted to make a shape like these(don't laugh please!) u promised not to laugh!!! please help me find the right way! …; Added by Nazanin Tabatabaei at 3:03am on November 18, 2015

Comment on: Topic 'Question about doing optimisation in Grasshopper with Femap': make-this-form-... Other than that: 1. Tensegrity is a "static" thingy in the sense that you use some module (let's call it "mode") and repeat. Creating some code that does INVENT new modes for T trusses (Pulitzer/EMMY/Nobel on sight, he he) ... I would strongly suggest to forget that THIS VERY MOMENT. 2. Applying some T "mode" on something (see my examples in the above thread where I use surfaces for the T nodes) is another animal. If you intend to use Kangaroo to "relax" that something (NOT the T itself) well ... you can do it but has nothing to do with T. 3. The Kangaroo def provided is a "way" to test the "rigidity" of the T in use. It's a "post-processing" thing NOT a T solving thing. 4. I have a terrible feeling: are you saying that (a) without knowing a thing (or two) from C#, (b) without knowing K1/K2, (c) with a limited GH experience ... your goal is to write down from scratch a FEA ("Femap") thingy that ALSO does node "relaxation" ? If so ... well ... what about sky diving (without parachute) or that classic Russian roulette "game"? PS: shown double tetra (classic) and XFrames (classic) T trusses applied in open and closed surfaces. But of course these are abstract stupid "arrangements" utterly out of question in real-life: read CAREFULLY the discussion in the thread provided above AND also study the 3dPDF attached (with a system out of many available) in order to get the gist about what real-life means (Note: EVEN if no real-parts are used ... the node calculation is different from the abstract "star" connections pictured above - by "star" I mean that cables meet at a single point in space without any "offset" etc etc). Moral: Seppuku Plan Z: Skype ASAP …; Added by peter fotiadis at 11:58pm on November 20, 2015